text:
Talk:616 (number)

Untitled
Is there no explanation about how the papyrus worded the number 616. Is there no exerpt or quote to pull from for this? And if the papyrus is not the oldest version of revalations (see bottom of discussion) then why are people even reading it? CLH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.44.121.21 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does it need to decuss the apparent many ways 616 is said, pointless.

The thing is the papyrus found ws sid to be dated at around 300AD which means John (who wrote revalation) couldn't have written what was on it like they say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.45.220 (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Was Added Due to Confusion Based on Modern Arabic Numbering
I added some information clarifying how numbers are written in Greek. There is no reason to revert it. (EnochBethany (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Your information is wrong, or at least WP:FRINGE. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * χξς is generally considered to represent 600+60+6, rather than 6+6+6, as you claim. I do not believe modern Greeks use that system of numerology, so the error is reasonable, although not in the video you point to as a source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 * My information is correct & hardly fringe. I didn't make the claim you say I made.  I said that a number 666 would be interpreted in ancient Greek thought as 6 + 6 + 6.  Of course the text is not 666, it is  χ + ξ + ς (600 + 60 + 6).   And I added that to my paragraph to clarify.  Any claim you made on my talk page implying that numerology or gematria or playing mystically with numbers is generally academically accepted is false; such fanciful playing with letters in texts is rightly debunked scientifically.  Now the idea that ancient persons and modern can be found who practiced such numerology is of course true.  There was nothing wrong about my citation, but I added another one just for good measure.  The idea that ancient Greeks would have regarded 3 alphabet-numbers as having Arabic place value, is an error, as is shown by the texts that spell out the number of the beast in comparison with those that use mere letter-numbers.  And it is an error that needs identification in articles on the number of the beast.(EnochBethany (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC))
 * 666 means "six-hundred sixty-six" in English, and 616 means "six-hundred sixteen" in English. Thus it is patently wrong to say that 616 and 666 are not found Revelation.  This is the English Wikipedia, so saying that 666 is not six-hundred and sixty-six is unacceptable.  Please learn to count before editing the article again. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * However, if the "biblestudytools" source is reliable, it could be used as a source contradicting the "Nero" speculation which might be in the other sources. (I haven't read them yet.)   The rest of the analysis in "biblestudytools" is WP:FRINGE, at best.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't using the best sources I've seen (Number of the beast has better), but I've been under the impression that the 616=Nero bit is common in academia, though not necessarily in the church pews and Sunday schools. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's gotten worse.... Nero=616 is common in academia, but the "number of the beast" in Revelation 13 is still almost always "666".  (I've seen it attributed in interpretations as the number of "Man", not the number of a man, as well, through multiple transliterations and then applying numerology.  As Chebychev has at least 6 acceptable transliterations into English, I, and I believe even Biblical scholars who believe the Bible to be "the word of God" without typos, would consider numerology based on transliteration to be absurd.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: "It's gotten worse...." 616 = 6 electrons 1 neutron 6 protons = carbon-7 isotope = interdimensional life forms. a youtuber told me so. i'm not sure why google isnt showing anything 666 = 6 electrons 6 neutrons 6 protons = carbon-12 = number of the beast = limited dimensional occupational beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.154.53 (talk) 07:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

factual accuracy
You labeled The Number of the Beast section "This section's factual accuracy is disputed" but not in a way that indicates which facts you consider in dispute. tahc chat 22:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevance
I recently added a short entry in the 'In other fields' Section of the main article that has been removed by Tahc, without explanation. Let me now explain why I am about to reinstate that entry. First, the 'In other fields' Section is expressly provided to permit the airing of aspects of a topic that could be considered too marginal to be included elsewhere. At the same time, it is incumbent on contributors to make sure these entries are sufficiently relevant and important. I assert that my contribution meets both of those criteria. I pointed out that the number 616 is the value of the Hebrew word: HaTorah (The Torah), using the principles of Gematria. Note that Gematria already has a Wikipedia entry, as does Torah, which immediately gives weight to this piece of information. As to whether the information is important, it must be remembered that the Hebrew Torah is the document that gives the foundation to Judaism. Without it, there would be no such religion, and probably no such national identity. The word 'Torah' is by no means trivial and, therefore, the number 616 has a role in linking the Jewish identity to their own scriptures, using a recognised, ancient technique of their own devising. I trust that any counter-argument will be made clear. --DStanB (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

 * 1. I removed the text with explanation.
 * 2. The 'In other fields' Section is not for indiscriminate information. All information has to be noteworthy. Some information can be useful but not noteworthy; the information I removed was neither noteworthy or even useful. As I said, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * We have articles on Gematria, Torah, 616 (number), and The, but not every set of subjects with Wikipedia articles can be put together into a noteworthy piece of information.
 * 16 (number) plus 600 (number) equals 616 (number), but we don't have this in any of these articles because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All the parts of the fact do have an article, but together it is still trivial.
 * 3. Please read WP:N, for more information on notability. tahc chat 21:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have no further comment I am removing the 616 = HaTorah fact. tahc chat 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason I have not yet made further comment is because I do not stay online 24/7. I shall look into your given reason for inhibiting the range of information that is available in this article, and may come back to you (and whoever may be watching this exchange, since it is not a private conversation). What I will say already is that the information I am trying to make available is definitely verifiable, and seems to me no less relevant, and probably moreso than one or two of the other entries in the 'In other fields' Section. --DStanB (talk) 10:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is my considered response. First, I have consulted WP:N and find that it applies to whole articles, and is not normally relevant to entries within articles. More importantly, I cannot agree that my edit was 'neither noteworthy nor even useful'. It might be both of those things to certain Wikipedia users, allowing for different users having alternative interests and requirements. For example, there is a Wiki Project on Esotericism, which will eventually link to many articles that make a contribution to this vast subject area. Who is to say that the 616(Number) article might not be added to that list?

Second, the gematria value of the Hebrew word HaTorah is a number, not just a code or a label. Whereas the entry for Earth-616 in the same list is, according to the corresponding article, most likely to be a randomly selected label. Neither is 616 film based on a pure number, but on a combination of SIX and 16.

Next, I am not arguing for those two entries to be removed from the Article, since they may be considered noteworthy and useful by some Wikipedia users. Rather, my argument is that the 616 Gematria of HaTorah cannot be considered any less useful or noteworthy, and may be considered moreso by some users.

Finally, I am not immediately reinstating my original edit, while I await your final response. --DStanB (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes, WP:N is normally a policy about the topic of the notability of a topic for a whole article. None the less, can still be useful for reference. We may (or may not) find the essay at Discriminate vs indiscriminate information for useful for the issue of topics within an article that is already considered notable. The essay, however is not official Wikipedia policy; it is advice and/or opinion. WP:N is Wikipedia policy.
 * (1) I consider both Earth-616 and 616 film better to leave in than HaTorah. "616 = HaTorah" is such an obscure fact it actually time consuming to compare its obscurity to other facts. Let me put it this way. The name of the topic of a Wikipedia article can always be discussed in that article. Since Earth-616 and 616 film have there own articles, the name of those two can always be discussed in those articles. If something (the names of Earth-616 and 616 film) can be discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, it can often be discussed more than just one place on Wikipedia-- such as at 616 (number), when is part of the name of that thing.
 * While we have an article on gematria itself, but we rarely, if ever, discuss the "gematria value" of name of the topic of a Wikipedia article. Even when the article is about a Hebrew word or a Hebrew topic, the gematria value of the word cannot always be discussed in that article. The gematria value of the name of a Wikipedia article is not like the name of the Wikipedia article.
 * Furthermore, even if this were different, we do not and will not have a Wikipedia article The Torah nor HaTorah. Common sense and Wikipedia policy is to only have a page on "Torah" instead.
 * (2) While I consider both Earth-616 and 616 film better to leave in than HaTorah, I am willing to have both left out as a compromise, it that would help.
 * (3) You still have not given either reasons nor citations for why "616 = HaTorah" would be either notable (for lack of a better term) nor useful. Why would anyone care? Has anyone ever written a whole article or a book on the gematria value of HaTorah before? If it is so important and useful, wouldn't if be better to put it in the Torah article instead? Or at least put it there first? tahc chat 21:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding (3), it seems you have not read my comments very carefully. To elaborate, a citation is not needed because the 616 Gematria of התורה (The Torah) is verifiable from readily-available sources, including the Wikipedia article on Gematria. Notice, by the way, that Hebrew grammar considers 'The Torah' to be a single word. As for 'Why would anyone care?', undoubtedly there will be students of subjects related to Jewish mysticism who might like to be able to relate the Gematria of התורה to other instances of the same number. I, for one, would not like to pre-judge where the boundaries of their interest ought to be drawn. Yet that does seem to be the chief basis of your objection to this entry.

Regarding (1), I agree with most of the factual content in what you say, such as the sense of having an article for 'Torah', but not for 'The Torah' Even the Hebrew Wiki page for 'Torah' does also omit the definite article. However, I have trouble seeing how you get from there to the conclusion that the 616 Gematria value of HaTorah does not belong in the article for 616 (Number).

Regarding (2), please do not remove the entries for 'Earth-616' or '616 film' on my account. Nonetheless, I wonder if those two topics might be better placed in a 'See also' section. Whereas the 616 Gematria of HaTorah would be best left where I originally put it. That is because, I reiterate, a Gematria value is a number, whereas those other two entries use '616' not as a number but as a label. And the article is, of course, about the number 616. Therefore, I wonder why you would be more willing to sacrifice two entries that you (for whatever reason) consider relevant, rather than include another that other Wikipedia users might consider both useful and noteworthy.

I also consulted that essay on Discriminate vs indiscriminate information, but found it to be less than relevant here. The Section heading 'In other fields' must surely imply that relevant 'fields' can exist that may have no other connection than a common emphasis on the number 616 even, perhaps, where this group of numerals acts only as a label.

If you still believe I have not made a good enough case to have my proposed entry restored, is it possible to seek an independent ruling?--DStanB (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

 * (3): You seem to be thinking that Wikipedia only uses citations to verify facts, but that is not so. Wikipedia uses citations from sources to establish that topics are noteworthy. For example, 600 + 16 = 616 is also verifiable from readily-available sources, but that doesn't make it fact worthy of including anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * You may personally prefer to not pre-judge where the boundaries of their interest are, but that is not how Wikipedia works. On Wikipedia we (generaly) have to assume things are not worthy of including, unless we can establish that the topic is noteworthy.
 * Also note that someone could write a document that lists many Gematria values, but that is not the sort of source that would establish noteworthiness.
 * Again, if "The Torah = 616" is so important and useful, wouldn't if be better to put it in the Torah article instead? Or at least put it there first?
 * (1): To summarize, "X of Y of Z" is always more obscure that "Y of Z". We have long standing practice to include "Y of Z" but no practice to include "X of Y of Z". Maybe if you reread my comments above, you can ask more informed questions on what you did not follow. (N.B. that 'The Torah' not being 'Torah' was only a side point-- not the main issue.)
 * If you still want to seek an independent opinion I propose Third opinion. tahc chat 17:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

On reflection, I shall defer to your position and maybe post this information elsewhere, as you have suggested. No point making a mountain out of a molehill.--DStanB (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this information were noteworthy, then Torah would certainly be a better place for it. In my view it is also too obscure for that article, but maybe people at that page will feel differently. tahc chat 14:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:616 (number)


text:
User talk:Wcbarwell

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) 23:09, Jun 14, 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

Xenu loves you!
Welcome on board ;-) - David Gerard 14:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Scientology
Just started - David Gerard 19:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Wcbarwell


text: User talk:69.157.232.185

title: User talk:69.157.232.185


text: User talk:69.157.242.103

title: User talk:69.157.242.103


text:
Talk:Seven Samurai 20XX

Scared Jewel, Steeple of Light, Child of Heaven
Unless this is a huge game with a large number of characters upon which vast amounts can be written, I suggest that the articles for Child of Heaven and Steeple of Light and the as yet unwritten Scared Jewel article be merged into the text of this article. This will keep everything about the game in one place.

The existing articles can be retained but turned into redirects to this one, so that if perchance someone types Steeple of Light they are taken to this article where they see the edifice described in the context of the game to which it belongs. I think that would be better than the current situation where the relevant articles contain lots of duplicated information from the main article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. I misunderstood the merging qualties and information containment suitible for articles when I first arrived at wikipedia. I think its much better now.-ZeroTalk 14:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments
Please list any problems seen with the article here for clearer reference. -ZeroTalk 17:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

 * lead section needs copy edit to expand and remove weasel wording designs by renowned French
 * the sub section Battle maneuvers isn't encyclopedic its a how to. the rest of the Game play section is fine.
 * Plot section needs a spoiler warning read above it's just courtesy to other readers.
 * Reception is actually Critisims this section needs more cites, or less weasel wording Many complained, Others complained

then give it copy edit Gnangarra 04:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * No problem. Thanks for the advice. I'll get to work on it now. -ZeroTalk 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Done. -ZeroTalk 22:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GA status
I took a look at this article to see if I could pass or fail it, but it really lost me in places, which seems not to be in sync with the GA standard "(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers". I am even a gamer, and couldn't understand the article. For example: Overall, the article has too many in-game terms without context or explanation. Also, it needs a thorough copyedit, as it has several spelling, grammar, and consistency issues (for example, you capitalize "Nitou-Ryu" in some places, and one place it is lower-case).
 * "twin-sworded fighting style" - no idea what that means, should be defined in the article or linked.
 * "... is the potential skill-related battle commands such as the Nitou-Ryu mode" - totally lost me there. What's a skill-related battle command? What is a "mode" in this context?
 * "The point of the game is to constantly keep the second sword out..." - lost again. That's the point of the whole game?  Might be better to say something like, "An important technique in the game is..."
 * "... increasing the durability of its timer with just steps, just guards and just attacks." Not sure what this means. How does a timer have durability?
 * You introduce the concepts of "just steps" etc before you actually explain them - needs to be the other way around.

I am willing to place the nom on hold for seven days, but I think if the article can't be substantially cleaned up in that time it would fail GA. -- Aguerriero  ( talk ) 19:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Aguerriero gives good advice. As an editor whom played the game regualrly, I understand how my depiction of the article conveyed a sense of being incomprehensible to those who didn't. I'll do a rewrite immediately. -ZeroTalk 19:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More questions and/or comments: Per the above comment, I don't think the article is close enough to GA to justify putting it on hold, so I'm failing it. Nifboy 06:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "The player takes the role of the Natoe," I saw this and wondered, "What is a Natoe?". I'm guessing this is a byproduct of hasty editting, and was meant to read "the samurai Natoe" or something.
 * "Nitou-Ryu mode-engaged by simultaneously pressing the L1 and R1 buttons on the PlayStation 2 controller." Please don't do this. Please please please don't do this. Kittens die every time you put instructions in a CVG Wikipedia article. Also, that would be a fragment, not a sentence.
 * Screenshots that have that stupid GameSpy tag on them should be replaced with unmarked images.
 * The plot can probably be safely converted to prose; In my experience short blurbs per chapter are evil because some chapters are vastly more important than others.
 * You know, you can directly cite the game and noone will think the lesser of it. Citing a walkthrough is both completely unneccessary and excessive.

 * Done. Hopefully, it will make it this time. -Zero 11:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Refs should be like this -

.

Not

.

Cheers (I don't review things twice), H ig hway Batman! 17:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On Hold
This article is On Hold at WP:GAN, once you have fixed this problem, please remove the On Hold template yourself.

 * The lead image doesn't have a fair use rationale
 * You still haven't cleaned up the references

Refs should be like this -

.

Not

.

Now Zero, ;) once you have fixed this, remove the On Hold template? 'Kay? ;P H ig hway Return to Oz... 17:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Comments
I dropped by to review this article for GA and have a question. Is there a gaming equivalent of a spoiler warning template? If so, should it go in here? Otherwise, besides minor language style problems, it's good to go. --CTS Wyneken (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's recently been a giant discussion about spoilers in video game articles, and whether they have any use in an encyclopedia at all. It's ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. I'll put them in for now, since it seems like the RfC is going to be canned. --Zeality 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put the article on hold because the plot paragraph requires cutting down. Generally three of four paragraphs are enough to describe the game. Iola k ana |T  18:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A week was spent on hold and no response, so the article is automatically failed. Moreschi 12:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Development section
Why isn't there one? That is standard for video game articles. Who made this game? How was it made? What about sales figures? Even if the GA reviewers don't require it, the article writers should add it. Judgesurreal777 05:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Seven Samurai 20XX


text: User talk:69.157.224.238

title: User talk:69.157.224.238


text:
Talk:Maurice Wilkes

Ph.D. supervisor
I presume J. A. Ratcliffe was Wilkes Ph.D supervisor? Linuxlad 23:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FREng
I've no idea whether there are any formal rules, but I get the impression that an FRS conveys such eminence that holders do not usually list other professional degrees or qualifications as post-nominal abbreviations.—Mhkay (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Place of death
The article currently states that Wilkes died in Cambridge, but I can't find any reference to this information in the currently available search results in Google News (http://news.google.com/). In fact, short of an actual obituary, his date of death isn't even certain. Citations, anyone?—QuicksilverT @ 19:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Titles and honorifics
Formally, Wilkes would have been 'Professor Sir Maurice Wilkes, etc.'. If I understand WP:NAME properly, 'Sir' is allowed in the first line but not professor. To get round this, I've moved all the styles to later in the first paragraph. Can anyone think of a better way to do this? -Parsonscat (talk) 08:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maurice Wilkes. 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/20150403185916/http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Maurice,Wilkes/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Maurice,Wilkes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403185916/http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Maurice,Wilkes/ to http://www.computerhistory.org/fellowawards/hall/bios/Maurice,Wilkes/

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) 16:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Maurice Wilkes


text:
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 15

Category:Proto-languages and Category:Proposed languages

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest merge to Category:Proposed languages. --Tabor 19:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge — Sebastian (talk) 00:34, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Do Not Merge- The controversy over whether certain languages are proposed or actual is important. So, whoever wants to add or move items from one list or the other, do so. Have an editing war if you want. In anthropology, you need to be able expand categories, I think. Kzzl 19:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2 concerns: (1) The article Proposed language says it's most commonly a proto-language. So there's naturally a huge overlap. (2) What do you think is gained for Wikipedia if the distinction is fought out here? — Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sebastian, merge. Radiant_ >|< 09:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I oppose this merge, unless the articles are merged first. --ssd 11:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Argentine economy

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

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:Economy of Argentina, to be consistent with the other Economy of Foo subcategories of Category:Economy by nation. --Kbdank71 17:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Effects of 9/11

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization; this small subcat of Category:9/11 only makes it harder to locate anything. Merge it back into the main cat. Radiant_ >|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or rename: There may be a point in separating articles that treat the actual events of 2001 from the aftermath, but that should include a lot more articles, such as briefings, ceremonies, and medals. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Flights of 9/11 and Category:Timelines of 9/11

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overcategorization; these small subcats of Category:9/11 only make it harder to locate anything. Merge all of them back into the main cat. Radiant_ >|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: These categories are clearly defined; no confusion with the rest of the articles. — Sebastian (talk) 00:18, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * So they are, but they're also trivially small and unlikely to get new articles added ever. Radiant_ >|< 14:08, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:9/11 rumors, misinformation and conspiracy theories

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV and potentially name: 'misinformation'. Also, small and confusing in its overcategorization. Merge back into parent cat. Radiant_ >|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with parent and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to something like "September 11, 2001 in popular culture" or merge with the repercussions category, if we keep that one. — Sebastian (talk) 00:32, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Hold. It might be needed as a list of articles to merge if Votes for deletion/Rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks ends up being a merge. If the category is deleted before the VfD closes, please list the articles on that VfD before emptying. --cesarb 23:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, lacks concise context. zen master   T  09:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete due to inherently POV title. Kaibabsquirrel 06:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:9/11 perpetrators

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:9/11 hijackers, which is up for renaming below. Merge the two of them. Radiant_ >|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge with fellow and delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge both into new name, as discussed in . — Sebastian (talk) 00:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

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

Category:9/11 Commission

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to September 11, 2001 Commission, since the term '9/11' only has that meaning within the US. Systemic bias. Radiant_ >|< 11:11, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - the full name is the somewhat unwieldy National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, but more importantly in the grand scheme of things for everyone on this commision it was a relatively insignificant part of their notability. The members are listed in the aricle, there is (or at least could be - I didn't check all of them) a wikilink to the article from each member page, so I don't see the value of the category. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Rick Block. --Kbdank71 14:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested.  ℬ astique ▼ talk 15:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Rick Block. — Sebastian (talk) 17:12, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Given the above, I'd prefer deletion over renaming this. Radiant_ >|< 10:01, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Victims of 9/11

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should at least be renamed to Victims of September 11 attacks or something like that, but I'm wondering why we have this category in the first place. There are several lists of such people in the Wikipedia, and the existence of this category tends to attract people who wish to add entries on their otherwise not noteworthy family members and friends. Radiant_ >|< 11:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, this should be a list. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a tribute list at .  --Kbdank71 14:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 00:36, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Kaibabsquirrel 06:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * HOLD on deleting this until all the articles in it are considered for transwiki to the sept11 wiki. --ssd 11:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Categorisations by gender

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

The result of the debate was see each discussion --Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[Merged all of the similar categories for deletion together. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)]
 * It is my understanding that the votes here are for all gender-related categories listed directly below. Whoever closes this discussion should note that some people voted both here, and for individual categories. Radiant_ >|< 09:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Merge all with unisex equivalents and delete except Queens, which should be kept for the New York borough, and Women of Pakistan, which should be renamed as suggested to "Women activisim in Pakistan", perhaps? James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge all as per James F and Radiant! I agree, they're not equal if they're segregated.  --Kbdank71 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge (almost) all as per James F. For performing such searches we should implement combining categories, as proposed by Radiant! and many others. — Sebastian (talk) 17:23, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Keep all where is the discussion about this? Dunc|☺ 17:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Our Categorization of people guideline lists this as a prime example of how not to categorize. Radiant_ >|< 09:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge--"The result of this cat is that you won't find a woman in cat:scientists because she happens to be in cat:female scientists." is plenty enuf argument for me. Exception for the borough, of course, and for a better named Cat for the Pakistani women activists. For 'King/Queen' rulers, keep regnant/consort/mother/fictional subcats in some form. Niteowlneils 18:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Women scientists by nationality and all subcategories

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:30, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I understand the value of feminism, women's studies and equality, I do not understand why it would be necessary to subcategorize scientists simply because they're female. As a matter of fact it goes agains the very idea of equality. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * gender equality is an absolute joke, because women are still not recognised, even in history. making a separate category (or subcategory) highlights such a group. sometimes, the plight of a group needs to be highlighted. or do you suggest deleting "African American writers" and put them all into "Writers" as well? it´s called diversity in unity, so why not talk about it as well? it´s just a category... 141.20.154.221 15:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * We group people by reasonable distinction, such as their profession or country they live in. We do not group people by skin color or gender, because creating such distinctions only serves to create inequality. The result of this cat is that you won't find a woman in cat:scientists because she happens to be in cat:female scientists. Radiant_ >|< 12:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Women jazz composers, Category:Women composers, Category:Women classical composers and Category:Women writers

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once more, the existence of these categories asserts inequality, for the same reasons as above. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:American women, Category:Women in politics and Category:Female U.S. Senators

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categorization_of_people asserts that categorization should be gender-neutral. Indeed, creating separate categories for women is a way of creating inequality. For instance, a female high court judge deserves to be in the same category as a male high court judge. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * keep, obviously. Women are disadvantaged in politics because of society.  Dunc|☺ 17:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:British women

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Empty. But otherwise, same reasoning as above. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Women of Pakistan

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto, except that in this case most women here are activist or symbolic for women's equality, and the category should be renamed to reflect that. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * No need to rename this article as the rename is an unfair generalization. --Anonymous editor 01:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Ancient Roman women, Category:Roman empresses, Category:Murdered Roman empresses, Category:Women rulers, Category:Empresses, Category:Russian empresses

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listed as the very example of how not to categorize on Categorization of people, each of these should be merged with their male equivalent to create an egalitarian category. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I do not care much for the other listings. But "Category:Roman empresses" mostly deals with Empress consorts, wives of Emperors rather than reigning Monarchs. Placing them in the same category as their husbands would cause problems. The Equivalent of listing all six wives of Henry VIII of England in "Category:English monarchs". Would also require quite a rewright of List of Roman Emperors to list their various female co-rulers. Are you in fact suggesting that?User:Dimadick

 * don't really see a problem with the Category Empresses or Queens for that matter... some ruled by their own, some were married, some were widows, you can´t just put them all into one bag. voting to keep category. 141.20.154.221 15:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Keep them all. It seems pointless to decide to merge eevrything together just because someone feels the need to create the appearance of gender equality. Kuralyov 17:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Kings and Category:Queens, and subcats such as Kings Regnant
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Merge both for the same reason as above, into Category:Kings and queens (or possibly Category:Monarchs, but that severs a different purpose presently). Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Except of course for the parts about the New York neighborhood called Queens :) Radiant_ >|< 15:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What would that achieve? Currently the categorisation makes distinction of not only their sexes but their factions in political life. Kings regnant and Queens regnant being those who ruled by their own right. Kings consort and Queens consort being those who earn their title due to their marriage to a King or Queen regnant. Also listed are Queen mothers, mothers of reigning King and Queens. Are you suggesting for the distinction to be eliminated? User:Dimadick
 * I'm suggesting for the king/queen distinction to be eliminated. The distinction regnant/consort is very useful, and should remain. Radiant_ >|< 13:47, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * don't really see a problem with keeping "Kings" and "Queens". some were consorts, some reigned, so they were all different. but they had beeing a queen in common. i say keep it. User:antares911

 * keep don't be silly. Where is the discussion on ungenderised categorisation? Dunc|☺ 17:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, here. It's a long-existing guideline. Radiant_ >|< 09:50, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Philosophers by century
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Philosophers by era - both are a list of subcats that classify philosophers by time, and eras or periods in history make more sense on this account than strict centuries. Radiant_ >|< 08:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. Agreed; centuries may be what pass for eras of late, but that does not justify two parallel schemes. Buffyg 09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 17:14, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Keep, for pity's sake. Adds significant user value.  Era boundaries are uniformly subject to dispute, which makes them a distinctly substandard way of organizing anything.  -- Visviva 08:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has anyone actually looked up the Category:Philosophers by era. Not being without its merits (sometimes apparently parallel schemes serve a purpose), being a student of philosophy myself, I find this chart by century much more helpful, especially in a work of reference. (Because some philosophers cannot easily fit into an era. The era works mainly for Western philosophers, but are difficult to use for, say, Chinese philosophers. So both categories make perfect sense and should be left as they are. Maybe with a cross reference and a brief explanation as to why are there two categories, so this discussion will not repeat itself.) JM.Beaubourg 19:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * How about merging the two then, into Cateogry:Philosophers by time or something like that? Both are rather small, and both serve the same purpose if in a different pattern. Radiant_ >|< 09:56, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with JM.Beaubourg and Visviva. Jonathunder 22:01, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

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

Category:First-person shooter related technology
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only contains Computer mouse. Pointless. Radiant_ >|< 13:13, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Actors appearing in Woody Allen films
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unnecessary categorization; think of the mess this would create if more like these were created. Most of those included aren't even identified with Woody Allen movies, as the vast majority were not repeat performers for him. Contrast with Category:Star Trek actors or Category:Star Wars actors, for example; most of those included are only notable because of those roles, and as for the others, participation in either franchise leaves an indelible cultural mark on the individual. Except for maybe Diane Keaton, the same cannot be said of anyone who appeared in Woody Allen films, which are not as integrated a phenomenon as Star Trek or Star Wars. Postdlf 08:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Agree, I recently seen this cat and wondered how many people actually would know this. Notability on a selective scale. Whereas the other cats Category:Star Trek actors and Category:Star Wars actors are easily identified by a wider audience (notability). Delete.   <> Who ? ¿ ?  09:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Buffy and Category:Buffy episodes and Category:Buffy cast and crew
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename --Kbdank71 19:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. Radiant_ >|< 07:56, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Rename. Postdlf 08:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename. There is also Category:Buffy cast and crew as a subcat. Propose renaming or deleting along with this group, depending on population. (note: I listed it as Cfd, instead of Cfr as I wasn't sure)  <> Who ? ¿ ?  09:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to cfr now, but good idea. Radiant_ >|< 09:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested by nominator. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename as suggested.  ℬ astique ▼ talk 15:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's also Category:Buffy characters MosheZadka 09:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:United States collegial greek life
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:United States student societies. Also, using the word 'Greek' in this fashion is systemic bias, as in most cultures 'Greek' means 'from Greece', rather than 'having a name that happens to be composed of Greek letters'. Radiant_ >|< 07:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Student fraternities and Category:Student Sororities
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 19:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, apart from the renaming suggested below (to group them by country) - is there any particular reason to not merge these two categories into Category:United States student societies, especially given that several fraternities are in fact coed? Radiant_ >|< 07:46, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, merge. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. (Four German societis moved from Category:Student fraternities to Category:Student societies, all the rest appear to be US based). Nigosh 00:33, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Assassinated Roman empresses
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background: #bff9fc; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redundant with Category:Murdered Roman empresses. And also, empty. Radiant_ >|< 11:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete. James F. (talk) 13:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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


text: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 June 15


text:
Respiratory alkalosis

Respiratory alkalosis is a medical condition in which increased respiration elevates the blood pH beyond the normal range (7.35–7.45) with a concurrent reduction in arterial levels of carbon dioxide. This condition is one of the four primary disturbance of acid–base homeostasis.

Signs and symptoms
Signs and symptoms of respiratory alkalosis are as follows:
 * Palpitation
 * Tetany
 * Convulsion
 * Sweating

Causes
Respiratory alkalosis may be produced as a result of the following causes: • Stress

• Pulmonary disorder

• Thermal insult

• High altitude areas

• Salicylate poisoning (aspirin overdose)

• Fever

• Hyperventilation (due to heart disorder or other, including improper mechanical ventilation)

• Vocal cord paralysis (compensation for loss of vocal volume results in over-breathing/breathlessness).

• Liver disease

Mechanism
The mechanism of respiratory alkalosis generally occurs when some stimulus makes a person hyperventilate. The increased breathing produces increased alveolar respiration, expelling CO2 from the circulation. This alters the dynamic chemical equilibrium of carbon dioxide in the circulatory system. Circulating hydrogen ions and bicarbonate are shifted through the carbonic acid (H2CO3) intermediate to make more CO2 via the enzyme carbonic anhydrase according to the following reaction: $$\rm HCO_3^- + H^+ \rightarrow H_2CO_3 \rightarrow CO_2 + H_2O$$

This causes decreased circulating hydrogen ion concentration, and increased pH (alkalosis).

Diagnosis
The diagnosis of respiratory alkalosis is done via test that measure the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels (in the blood), chest x-ray and a pulmonary function test of the individual.

The Davenport diagram allows clinicians or investigators to outline blood bicarbonate concentrations (and blood pH) after a respiratory or metabolic acid-base disturbance

Classification
There are two types of respiratory alkalosis: chronic and acute as a result of the 3–5 day delay in kidney compensation of the abnormality.
 * Acute respiratory alkalosis occurs rapidly, have a high pH because the response of the kidneys is slow.
 * Chronic respiratory alkalosis is a more long-standing condition, here one finds the kidneys have time to decrease the bicarbonate level.

pH

 * Alkalosis refers to the process due to which there is elevation of blood pH.
 * Alkalemia refers to an arterial blood pH of greater than 7.45.

Treatment
Respiratory alkalosis is very rarely life-threatening, though pH level should not be 7.5 or greater. The aim in treatment is to detect the underlying cause. When PaCO2 is adjusted rapidly in individuals with chronic respiratory alkalosis, metabolic acidosis may occur. If the individual is on a mechanical ventilator then preventing hyperventilation is done via monitoring ABG levels.

In popular culture
In The Andromeda Strain, one of the characters is exposed to contamination, but saves himself by increasing his respiratory rate to induce alkalosis.

title: Respiratory alkalosis


text:
Bobbing

Bobbing can refer to multiple things:

 * Bobbing, Kent
 * Apple bobbing
 * Bobbing (boxing) is used to dodge an opponent's punch
 * John Erskine, Earl of Mar (1675–1732), Scottish Jacobite known as "Bobbing John"
 * Docking, the practice of removing a portion of an animal's ears or tail.

title: Bobbing


text:
Dumbleton–Powles Report

The Dumbleton–Powles Report is a report on Scientology prepared for the government of New Zealand by E.V. Dumbleton and Sir Guy Richardson Powles, and published on 30 June 1969.

Scientology existed in New Zealand at least as early as 1954.

In 1959 L. Ron Hubbard purchased and moved into Saint Hill Manor, a few miles from East Grinstead in Sussex, England. The practice of Scientology spread to a number of English-speaking countries, and Scientology soon attracted attention due to its controversial teachings, policies, and activities. Several official inquiries took place into Scientology in England, Australia, and elsewhere, and the respective governments published a number of reports in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In 1968 a petition with 716 signatures called upon the Parliament of New Zealand to set up a board of inquiry into Scientology. The Commission of Inquiry into the Hubbard Scientology organisation in New Zealand issued public notice that it would hear evidence in Auckland and Wellington in March and April 1969. The commission aimed to "hear about and examine cases where it is said that Scientology has in New Zealand led to the estrangement of families, affected the control of persons under 21, or put unreasonable pressure upon former Scientologists who have left it, or other persons".

After hearing evidence, the Commission found against Scientology, concluding that "the activities, methods, and practices of Scientology did result in persons being subjected to improper or unreasonable pressures". However, on receiving assurances that Scientology would change its practices, the Commission recommended that - subject to those assurances - no immediate action be taken against Scientology.

Similar reports

 * The Foster Report: United Kingdom, 1971 Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology
 * The Anderson Report: Victoria, Australia, 1965 Report of the Board of Inquiry into Scientology
 * The Lee Report: Ontario, Canada, 1970 Sectarian Healers and Hypnotherapy

This list of reports is not exhaustive.

title: Dumbleton–Powles Report


text:
User talk:Schweinsberg

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) 23:13, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

title: User talk:Schweinsberg


text:
Talk:Cameron Jerome

Untitled
On May 30 2005 this page was nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to keep. See Votes for deletion/Cameron Jerome for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source material
Esp about family. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cameron Jerome. 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/20100903005609/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2142220,00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2142220,00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cameron Jerome


text:
Talk:Irish European Constitution referendum

Major State
According to, Portugal is bigger in area and population than Ireland. I don't think too many people would say that Portugal is a major European state. Nice try. Pete 23:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, not to nitpick really but area and population aren't the only criteria for characterizing something as "major." From the same source, the per capita GDP of Ireland is $31,900 (US$, 2004), well above Portugal's ($17,900) and on par with France and Germany (both $28,700). So that would be a justification for calling Ireland a "major European state." I agree, though, that the article is better without the word "major." -EDM 16:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I spotted that, but Portugal has a higher GDP - it's just spread around more people. If we go down this track, Monaco is probably a powerhouse in the major nations league!

 * As I said, nice try, and I will never fault anyone for loving their country. Ireland and its delightful people certainly hold a major place in my affections. Pete 20:03, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article title
I have moved this back to Irish European Constitution referendum, in keeping with the other articles in this series, e.g. Czech European Constitution referendum, Danish European Constitution referendum and Polish European Constitution referendum etc. Snappy56 (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Irish European Constitution referendum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121012152945/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2005/0614/1118359085633.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2005/0614/1118359085633.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Irish European Constitution referendum. 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/20121012152945/http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2005/0614/1118359085633.html to http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2005/0614/1118359085633.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


text:
Abasiophilia

Abasiophilia is a psychosexual attraction to people with impaired mobility, especially those who use orthopaedic appliances such as leg braces, orthopedic casts, or wheelchairs. The term abasiophilia was first used by John Money of the Johns Hopkins University in a paper on paraphilias, in 1990.

In popular culture
Abasiophilia plays a prominent role in the Michael Connelly novel The Scarecrow, in which a serial killer is motivated by abasiophilia.

title: Abasiophilia


text:
Edo meisho zue

Edo meisho zue (江戸名所図会) is an illustrated guide describing famous places, called meisho, and depicting their scenery in pre-1868 Tokyo, then known as Edo. It was printed using Japanese woodblock printing techniques in 20 books divided among seven volumes. Initially published in 1834 (volumes 1–3, 10 books) and republished in 1836 (volumes 4–7, all 20 books) with slight revisions—i.e., all during the late Edo period (1603–1867), it became an immediate hit and prompted a “boom” in the publication of further meisho zue (“famous site guides”).

History
It took form over a span of more than 40 years. It was conceived by Saitō Gesshin (1737–1799) who, influenced by the proliferation of famous site guides about places in Japan's Kansai region, decided Edo needed one, too. He is thought to have begun work around 1791 and is known to have gotten permission to publish and written a foreword, but he died before he could finish. From this point forward, Yukio's son-in-law Saitō Yukitaka Agatamaro (1772–1818) began work, undertaking new research to add new sites and re-researching other information; but he, too, died suddenly shortly before he could complete his task. Yukitaka's son, Saitō Yukinari Gesshin (1804–1878), was only 15 at the time, so he was not able to take up immediately where his father had left off; nonetheless, Yukinari was determined to complete his father's and grandfather's labor of love. When he finally managed to bring all the research, writing, editing, and correcting to fruition in 1834, he delivered to the public an innovative and highly detailed human geography that even today serves as a valuable resource for academic and hobby historians of late–Edo-period Tokyo.

It was illustrated by Hasegawa Settan (1778–1843). His illustrations are credited with contributing as much to the work's fame and long popularity—people still refer to it today for walking tours of historical sites—as does the prose.

Content
The account starts by explaining the history of Musashi Province, the settlement of Edo, and the founding of the Edo Castle, then it moves on to describe the city and its surroundings block by block, town by town, in a manner reminiscent of a walk-through of each area with stops at famous sites. The descriptions often include information about the origins of the place or site's name and its history, as well as quotations from well-known works of literature (such as Matsuo Bashō’s haiku) that mention it.

In overall scope, Edo Meishō Zue goes beyond the confines of the Edo proper and includes descriptions and illustrations of surrounding areas as well, venturing as far away as today's Hino to the west, Funabashi to the east, Ōmiya to the north, and Yokohama to the south.

title: Edo meisho zue


text:
Paul V. McNutt

Paul Vories McNutt (July 19, 1891 – March 24, 1955) was an American diplomat and politician who served as the 34th governor of Indiana, high commissioner to the Philippines, administrator of the Federal Security Agency, chairman of the War Manpower Commission and ambassador to the Philippines.

Background
Paul Vories McNutt was born in Franklin, Indiana, on July 19, 1891, the only child of John C. and Ruth McNutt. Both his parents were school teachers when they met, but his father began practicing law just before he was born. The family moved to Indianapolis in 1893 where his father had become librarian of the Indiana Supreme Court. McNutt was enrolled in public school in the city and attended for two years. In 1898 his father resigned his position and they moved again to Martinsville where he opened a law office. McNutt was moved to a local school where he attended until graduation.

In 1909, McNutt entered Indiana University where he was active in campus politics, acted in student theater productions and was a close friend and Beta Theta Pi fraternity brother of Wendell Willkie, future Republican candidate for president of the United States who, like McNutt, was then a Democrat. After graduating from Indiana in 1913, McNutt went to Harvard Law School where he became a member of Acacia fraternity as well as taking an extracurricular job as a United Press reporter and sports writer. McNutt took his law degree from Harvard in 1916, then returned to Martinsville where in a race for Morgan County prosecutor he was narrowly defeated.

Academics
The following year he took a job as assistant professor at the Indiana University School of Law, but quit to enlist in the United States Army when the United States entered World War I. McNutt completed officer candidate school at Fort Benjamin Harrison, and received his commission in the field artillery branch. He was assigned to provide instruction in field artillery skills, and served at Camp Travis, Kelly Field, and Camp Stanley, Texas, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina. While in Texas, he met and married his wife, Kathleen. He was discharged as a major in 1919, and later joined the reserves, where he rose to the rank of colonel.

After leaving active military service, McNutt returned to his law school teaching job, becoming a full professor in 1920 and then, in 1925, the youngest dean in the school's history. He skillfully used both his university connections and his wartime experience to launch his political career. As law school dean, he forcefully attacked pacifists and opponents of compulsory military training on college campuses. He had since returning from the war been active in the American Legion, an influential veterans' organization, and spoke frequently throughout the state. In 1927, he was elected commander of the Indiana department of the American Legion. His group's lobbying brought him contact with many state leaders which began his interest in politics and began building a political base of support.

Indiana
McNutt became chairman of the state party and led the Indiana delegation to the Democratic National Convention in 1932. Up until the last ballot, he and the delegation refused to support the nomination of Franklin D. Roosevelt for President. McNutt was dismissive and rude to Roosevelt when he came to personally ask for their support. Roosevelt never forgot the slight, and from then on in private he referred to McNutt as "that platinum blond S.O.B from Indiana."

The same year, Indiana's Democrats nominated McNutt for governor at the state convention. In the general campaign he focused his attacks on Republicans by blaming them for doing too little to resolve the problems of the Great Depression. His campaign created the first political club for supporters in the United States. Members could join for a small fee with the contributions going to the campaign. The idea became popular and is now employed in many campaigns nationwide. He won easily, swept along in that year's national Democratic landslide led by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Democrats swept the Indiana General Assembly as well, taking 91 out of 100 house seats, and 43 of the 50 senate seats.

McNutt was a forceful and controversial governor. With an overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature, he completely reorganized state government with the passage of the Executive Reorganization Act. The act effectively rolled back over fifty years of restrictions the legislation had placed on the governor in appointing officials, in having control over policy, giving him a measure of control over the more independent branches of the administration, and also granting new and expanded powers to the Lieutenant Governor of Indiana.

To remedy the state funding problem, he was able to have constitutional amendments passed that legalized a gross income tax. Previously almost all state revenue had come from property tax which fell disproportionately on farmers and rural citizens, while since the 1920s the majority of citizens were living in Indiana's cities. In the city, most people owned much less property, leading few city dwellers to pay any taxes at all. To provide another source of revenue, he advocated creating a state-issued franchise license, so that licensees would be the only business that could sell liquor in the state. The General Assembly approved and legalized beer and wine sales in the store in anticipation of the repeal of federal prohibition. The revenue increases had the desired effect and balanced the state budget and paid off the $3.4 million debt created during World War I. He left office with state possessing a $17 million surplus.

McNutt was very involved in joining the state to the new federal welfare programs. Legislation was passed to allow the state to participate in Social Security and worker's unemployment programs. Additionally, he was most active in pursuing federal jobs and created the administrative framework necessary for Indiana to participate in the Works Progress Administration programs. More than 75,000 Hoosiers were working in the government program before he left office. This created a massive patronage system that made McNutt one of the most powerful governors in the state's history.

McNutt earned the reputation of an old-style machine politician by using the reorganization of state government to oust his opponents, both Republican and Democratic, from state jobs and by forcing state employees to pay two percent of their salaries to the Indiana Democratic Party. The "Two Percent" club scandals would hinder McNutt's chances of obtaining a place on the 1940 and 1944 national tickets. The system for exclusive franchises for beer distribution were sold to his campaign contributors who in turn made large donations to him and the party. He also had the legislature postpone the 1933 municipal elections as a cost-saving measure, adding an extra year to the terms of local officials, a majority of whom were Democrats. McNutt took up the cause of getting John Dillinger paroled from the Michigan City State Penitentiary. He submitted a false record of Dillinger's criminal and prison activities and excluded two letters from law enforcers. Dillinger was granted clemency and later was named the first "Public Enemy Number One."

McNutt also took up the cause of welfare reform. The new welfare laws passed effectively made charitable giving by the government an entirely state level controlled operation. Previously, local governments had been in charge of identifying needs and carrying out relief. McNutt began his term with the support of several key labor groups, but soon lost that support. Although McNutt's administration curtailed the use of court injunctions to prevent labor picketing, McNutt did not hesitate to declare martial law in eleven coal-mining counties where major violence accompanied union efforts to organize the miners. In all, McNutt called out the Indiana National Guard three times in response to labor-related violence.

In the 1934 mid-term elections, Republicans gained seats in both houses of the General Assembly and narrowed the Democratic majority. They began an attempt to rein in McNutt's power by creating a merit system to limit McNutt's control of the current patronage system. Publicly, McNutt supported the legislation, but once enacted it had very little effect on the operation of the government as many parts were simply ignored. Over time though, the system was gradually implemented in some state bureaus.

Federal government
Indiana's constitution kept McNutt from seeking reelection as governor in 1936, and he launched a bid to be nominated to run for President on the Democratic ticket. He was considered the front-runner until Roosevelt announced he would seek a second term. McNutt was overwhelmingly defeated, but attempted to be nominated for Vice President. Roosevelt, however, still recalled McNutt's lack of support in his previous reelection bid and refused to accept him. Despite the rejection, McNutt campaigned strongly for Roosevelt's reelection as president. Roosevelt made him High Commissioner to the Philippines in 1937, a post that McNutt thought would help him in a presidential bid in 1940 and which Roosevelt, contemplating a third term for himself, thought would effectively sideline McNutt.

With the Philippines largely self-governing, the post of high commissioner was mostly ceremonial. Nevertheless, McNutt managed to stir controversy by appearing fussy over details of protocol. He also questioned the wisdom of giving early independence to the islands as promised in the 1934 Tydings–McDuffie Act, believing that the small country could not defend itself. McNutt was also the target of criticism from Republicans, notably Representative Albert J. Engel of Michigan, for a proposal to construct a "summer palace" in the mountains near Baguio.

In a notable humanitarian act, McNutt, in cooperation with Commonwealth President Manuel L. Quezon, quietly side-stepped the U.S. Department of State in allowing the entry into the Philippines of 1,300 Jewish refugees fleeing fascist regimes in Europe. This was at a time when the refugees could not legally enter the United States itself in large numbers. McNutt's role was documented in the 2013 film Rescue in the Philippines: Refuge from the Holocaust.

By 1938 the press speculated that McNutt would, despite opposition from Roosevelt supporters, "have to be reckoned with" for the 1940 Democratic nomination for president because of his military and American Legion service, gubernatorial record, and "astonishingly good looks." He left the Philippines in 1939 to become head of Roosevelt's new Federal Security Agency, an umbrella office that managed an array of New Deal programs that ranged from the Civilian Conservation Corps to Social Security. It also served as a cover agency from 1942 to 1944 for the War Research Service, a secret program to develop chemical and biological weapons. The FSA job gave McNutt high visibility, but his presidential hopes ended because Roosevelt decided to seek a third term. Although McNutt's name was floated as a possible vice-presidential running mate, Roosevelt apparently did not seriously consider the possibility, preferring the more liberal Secretary of Agriculture Henry A. Wallace. Coincidentally, Roosevelt's opponent in 1940 was McNutt's Indiana University classmate and Beta Theta Pi fraternity brother Wendell Willkie, now a Republican.

Later years
McNutt loyally supported Roosevelt in 1940 and was given added responsibilities at the FSA in managing defense-related health and safety programs. In 1942, Roosevelt appointed him chairman of the War Manpower Commission, which was charged with planning to balance the labor needs of agriculture, industry and the armed forces, but the position carried little real power. While in this capacity, McNutt publicly urged "the extermination of the Japanese in toto". When asked for clarification, McNutt indicated that he was referring to the Japanese people as a whole—not just the Japanese military—"for I know the Japanese people." In a further qualification one week after the original statement, McNutt stated that the comments reflected his personal views and not official U.S. government policy.

McNutt was among 12 nominated at the 1944 Democratic National Convention to serve as Roosevelt's running mate in the presidential election that year, receiving one vote. After Japan's surrender in 1945, President Harry S. Truman sent him back to the Philippines for a second tour as high commissioner. Following Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, McNutt served as America's first ambassador to the islands, a post he left in 1947 to take up law practice in New York and Washington, D.C. After serving as ambassador, he also chaired the Philippine-American Trade Council, a business organization, and was a director of several firms in Manila. McNutt's prominence was demonstrated by his appearance on the covers of Life and Time magazines in 1939 when he returned from the Philippines, and on a Time cover in 1942 when he took the chair of the War Manpower Commission.

In 1950, McNutt became chairman of the board of United Artists Corporation. His involvement with the company was short-lived, as he and his management team stepped aside in favor of Arthur B. Krim and Robert Benjamin within less than a year.

Personal life and death
While in Texas, he met and married his wife, Kathleen. He was discharged as a major in 1919, and later joined the reserves, where he rose to the rank of colonel.

McNutt fell ill in 1955 and decided to travel on a cruise to the Philippines to recover in the warm climate after a surgery. His condition only worsened and after arriving in Manila he flew to New York for better care. He died March 24, 1955, in New York City, aged 63, and is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Paul V. McNutt Quadrangle, a residence hall complex at Indiana University Bloomington, is named for him and has a bust of him in the front foyer of the main building.

title: Paul V. McNutt


text:
User talk:Chewntang

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) 23:15, Jun 14, 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

title: User talk:Chewntang


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe McGuire (salesman)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 01:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Joe McGuire (salesman)
Not notable. Memorial? According to the article, he is just a salesperson like the title implies. There are millions of salespeople in the world. Failed the Google test with "Mr. Retail"+"Joe McGuire" = no results. In addition "Joe McGuire" "car salesman" = low unrelated results. Chill Pill Bill 23:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- sounded like a nice guy, but perhaps not notable enough for inclusion. - Longhair | Talk 23:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I find this kind of interesting, and he sounded like a pretty cool person, but a car salesman just isn't an encyclopedic topic, even a successful one. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 01:03, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable. JamesBurns 06:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page .


text:
User talk:Nbeyer

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) 23:16, Jun 14, 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

Nomination of Healthcare Delivery Organization for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Healthcare Delivery Organization is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Healthcare Delivery Organization until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nbeyer


text:
Bob John

Robert Frederick John (3 February 1899 – 17 July 1982) was a Welsh football player and coach.

Born in Barry, John played for Barry Town and Caerphilly, before joining English club Arsenal, who signed him, against stiff competition, in January 1922 for a fee of £750. John made his Arsenal first-team debut on 28 October 1922 in a 2–1 defeat at home to Newcastle United and quickly became a regular, succeeding Tom Whittaker at left half. His ability was such that soon after he made his debut for the Welsh national side, against Scotland on 17 March 1923; it was the first of fifteen caps.

John was displaced from the Arsenal side in 1923–24 thanks to competition from Billy Blyth and Andrew Young, but after being switched to left back to cover for Andy Kennedy, he was a near ever-present in 1924–25. Eventually however, John was switched back to left half, and this time he remained a first-team regular. A prodigious ball-winner and noted passer of the ball, John reached (but lost) the FA Cup Final with Arsenal in 1926–27, after a mistake by his compatriot and close friend Dan Lewis; it was John who consoled Lewis after the final whistle, assuring him he would get another chance to a win a medal (although Lewis never did). He played in Arsenal's 2–1 victory over Sheffield Wednesday in the Charity Shield at Stamford Bridge in October 1930.

John remained in the Arsenal side through the first half of the 1930s, despite competition from Charlie Jones. He finally won some silverware with an FA Cup win in 1930, followed by three First Division titles, in 1930–31, 1932–33 and 1933–34, as well as the FA Charity Shield in 1933 and 1934. John also scored Arsenal's only goal of the 1932 FA Cup final, in which Arsenal were controversially beaten by Newcastle United. By this time he was one of the senior members of the Arsenal squad, and mentored many of the club's younger new arrivals, such as Alex James.

Although John played for Arsenal until his retirement in 1938, for the final three years of his career he was mainly a reserve player, having lost his place to Wilf Copping, and thus missed out on a medal in the Gunners' League win of 1934–35. Nevertheless, he played 470 times for the club in total, the most of any of Arsenal's pre-World War II players; as of 2006 he is tenth in the club's all-time appearances table.

On retiring in 1938, John joined the coaching staff at West Ham United. He later joined Torquay United as trainer, working under his former Highbury teammate Jack Butler, but when Butler left for Crystal Palace in May 1947, John followed, again as trainer. In 1949 he was appointed trainer-coach at Cardiff City, a position he held until March 1950 when he was appointed manager of Torquay United. He had an unsuccessful spell as manager at Plainmoor, winning only 7 of the 28 games he was in charge for and left his post in November 1950.

He finished his football career as a scout for Cardiff City. He died in Barry in 1982, at the age of 83. In 2008, his descendants loaned his shirts from the 1927, 1930 and 1932 FA Cup Finals to the Arsenal FC Museum.

As a player
Arsenal
 * Football League First Division: 1930–31, 1932–33, 1933–34
 * FA Cup winner: 1929–30; runner-up: 1926–27, 1931–32
 * FA Charity Shield: 1930, 1933, 1934

title: Bob John


text:
Foster Report

The Foster Report is a 1971 report titled Enquiry into the Practice and Effects of Scientology, written by Sir John Foster for the government of the United Kingdom, regarding the Church of Scientology. The report made its case with L. Ron Hubbard's own words and reprinted a number of the Church's internal Ethics Orders. It did not ban Scientology outright, but asked for legislation to ensure that psychotherapy in the United Kingdom is "a restricted profession open only to those who undergo an appropriate training and are willing to adhere to a proper code of ethics," and that the Scientology ethics and justice system did not meet such criteria.

Documents seized by the FBI in raids on the Church's US headquarters in July 1977 revealed that an agent had been sent to investigate Sir John Foster in an attempt to link him to Paulette Cooper, author of The Scandal of Scientology and victim of Operation Freakout. The documents showed that Lord Balniel, who had requested the official inquiry, was also a target. Hubbard had written, "get a detective on that lord's past to unearth the tit-bits".

Several official inquiries were made into Scientology in England, Australia, and elsewhere, and a number of reports were published by respective governments in the late sixties and early seventies.

title: Foster Report


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Parry (musician)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Kelly Martin 02:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Richard Parry (musician)
Vanity, non-notable. Delete. -- Spinboy 23:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Uh, this is Arcade Fire we're talking about here, not Joe's basement rockers. He was on a Macleans cover.  Notable by any Canadian musical measures. -The Tom 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. JamesBurns 06:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable musician of notable band and from notable family. Double Blue  (Talk) 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * See also: comments at Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Richard Parry (musician) from a contributor who would rather "improve the entry than delete it". Double Blue  (Talk) 22:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Cover of a national newsmagazine suggests notability to me. — mendel ☎ 20:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Spinboy, has Ottawa lost radio contact with planet earth lately? A member of Arcade Fire, non-notable?!? (And demonstrably not vanity, either; the article was created by someone in Pennsylvania, and TAF are from Montreal.) Stephen Harper's messing with your Bytownian heads, man...and yeah, for the record, that's a keep vote. Bearcat 04:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article establishes notability to my satisfaction. --Deathphoenix 14:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.  Please do not edit this page ..