text:
Wikipedia talk:Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting

Initial comments on voting
Almost half the people voting found that BC/AD violated NPOV. Several others who voted against the proposal found BCE/CE violated NPOV. This proposal attempts is an attempt to put policy into effect that many users (on both sides of the issue) believe violates NPOV. The same issues were raised in the original Eras proposal. Guettarda 02:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I beg you, in the interest of avoiding edit wars, to support proposal #4 despite your objections to the other points. Worse is not better. siafu 02:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Your objections are well noted. If what you say is accurate, I don't imagine the middle parts will be able to achieve 70% approval. You should know, however, that the consensus section is separate from the other issues, i.e. you can vote for the consensus section without supporting the other parts of the proposal. That's why it's broken up into separate sections. Kaldari 03:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * "If what you say is accurate" - are you trying to tell me that you have never bothered to look at the original proposal? The numbers are there, the statements are there.  I find it highly disturbing that you would have such disregard for the community that you would put it through this again without even bothering to take a casual glance at the original vote.  Are you simply out to disrupt the community?  Is this nothing but an exercise in trolling???  Guettarda 07:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This proposal is clearly an attempt to try to find an "equal" compromise. That's respectable, but in this case, I think you'll find that the attempt is going to ultimately go nowhere, because a number of POV editors regard the subject as a matter of honor, rather than as a subject for intellectual discussion, meanwhile a number of opposing POV editors (albethey less adamant generally than their aforementioned opponents) regard the use of B/CE as more "scholarly".  The problem is essentially, that there are two opposing camps arguing about the same thing, but their arguments are not in opposition to each other, one side is arguing about the color of apples, and the other is arguing about the shape of bananas.  Meanwhile, the biggest proponent of the whole crapfest that started this discussion to begin with, POV-pusher extraordinare, User:Jguk, with whom I actually have no content disputes, but who has seen fit to illegitemately change era notation from BC/AD to B/CE in over 1000 articles, has proposed an addition to WP:WIN (see Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not) to dumb down the entire EN:WPproject (i.e., turn it into a simpleton's version of simp:WP) in order to nullify the well-founded "scholarly" argument opposing his POV.  As I said, I don't have any problems with Jguk's productive edits, but this POV-pushing about eras is appalling.  Tomer TALK  08:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * Far from it, Tomer. I merely made certain articles internal consistent, and as advocated by the Manual of Style, and resisted changes from BC/AD notation to BCE/CE notation in fully consistent articles that some articles were trying to push through. You don't need to take my word for it - the issue went to ArbCom and the ArbCom found that that was exactly what I was doing. Indeed, I'm confused as what you see my "POV" being, as I've always stated that I reject the POV arguments that have been espoused.

 * The whole "scholarly" argument is particularly poor. We aren't writing for scholars, so why should we care what style scholars use? We're writing for the general public - so it is general usage which is relevant, jguk 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, jguk, your claim of only changing inconsistent articles to BC/AD and those which were previously consistent as BC/AD back is simply untrue. Parthia is a good example; the article had been using inconsistent notation for a year and a half until it was made consistent with BCE/CE (by me).  You did not get involved in working on the article until that point, where you switched everything to BC/AD.

 * Your POV has always been very clear: BCE/CE is less popular and wikipedia should use only the most popular notation. Additionally, you've also espoused the POV that BCE/CE is "Politically Correct" and that "PC" is bad (at least in the UK) for reasons that remain obscure to me.  Because of the statements you've made, I also must reject that claim that you've always rejected POV arguments as untrue.

 * Though you claim that the ArbCom vindicated your standpoint, you apparently found it to be bad enough at the time to quit in a huff, leaving me confused. I can say clearly, however, that claiming to have been acting for the reasons and in the manner you claim here is patently false. You are certainly entitled to your viewpoint, and in fact, I encourage your presenting it, but do not disguise the facts. siafu 14:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tomer. I presented a formal proposal to use BCE/CE in non-Christian related articles and people were very closely split. this just seems like a back-door way to bring my proposal up again, and this is premature. We have a style guide that says either system is fine as long as it is internal within the article. We have an NPOV policy, the application of which is best (for the moment) handled by editors contributing to an article. Let's just stick to these two established policies for a while. I see no reason not to continue discussion (although honestly, I think the community needs more of a break), but it is way premature to have a vote, especially when this proposal hasn't gone through anything close to the discussion mine did. Let's cool off and just stick with the guidelines and policies we have for now. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Slrubenstein's earlier proposal (as well as being deliberately conducted in a religiously divisive manner, even though religion should have nothing to do with this dispute) would, if adopted, have seen BC/AD notation abandoned entirely in Wikipedia, with BCE/CE notation reigning supreme. Almost all articles are non-Christian related - and so Slrubenstein would have favoured BCE/CE notation for them. All apart from one Christian-related article (that on Jesus Christ), cover dates wholly within the last 2,000 years (for obvious reasons), and so no date notation required. And Slrubenstein started this whole argument off by suggesting BC/AD notation should not be used on the Jesus article.

 * He's certainly right that the community needs a break though. The community also needs to go about improving its articles - and that means putting readers (not editors) first. This is a very, very small subset of where some editors have tried to put their religio-political beliefs ahead of the readers' interests. But more generally, we have many articles contributed by many learned academics that, unfortunately, are not written so the non-academic can understand them. That's a crying shame, and we really should encourage our writers to open up their language for a wider audience. The present dispute is a very, very, very small subset of this - and we'd be better off leaving it to one side for now and encouraging more fundamental improvements that will make our articles as accessible as possible, jguk 12:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems that by this repeated appeal to think of the readers, you are saying that wikipedia should determine which notation is the most popular and adhere to that. The problem, of course, is that we have an equal obligation to the readers regarding NPOV.

 * That aside, however, I'm unclear as to why your belief that BCE/CE doesn't serve the readership makes you opposed to the idea of consensus (point #4). Can this not be brought up as a point to be made in the development of consensus for an article? siafu 15:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, I have had it with your lying. My proposal would in NO way have "seen BC/AD notation abandoned entirely in Wikipedia." To claim that is simply a lie. You know it is a lie. Also, stop hiding behind this claim that your concern is "good writing." BC and BCE are not about good versus poor writing. No one disputes that articles should be well-written. Nor is this an issue of some group of editors (based on the vote concernig my proposal, about half of our editors) putting their religio-political beliefs against the "interests" of our readers. Who in god's name are you to claim to represent "the readers?" Here at Wikipedia, every reader is an editor, ever editor is a reader, and we discuss and debate ideas all the time. The issue here is how to write a high quality, NPOV encyclopedia. It was on these grounds alone that I made my proposal. You can disagree with it for any reason you like. But stop lying about me. It's pathetic. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It is regrettable that such a word as “lying” is used here. It seems that you have either a short memory or do not appreciate the implications of your earlier failed proposal.  You did propose.  You made the proposal Neutral_point_of_view/BCE-CE_Debate. If successful, it would have limited the conventional AD/BC articles.  At the same time you removed the conventional AD/BC notation from articles such as Cultural and historical background of Jesus.  One wonders what space would have been left for AD/BC.  If your incorrect assertion that “want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View” was true, then the “BC/AD notation” would be “abandoned entirely in Wikipedia”.
 * I still hope that you will pause, and reflect on your words and your actions.  --ClemMcGann 09:46, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep the comments brief
This is not a difficult concept to understand guys. If you want to debate, do it on the talk pages. If you want to vote, do it on the vote page. The voting page is for tallying opinions, it should not be cluttered up with debate and banter. If people do not stick to brief comments, I will be forced to remove all the comments completely. Kaldari 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Editing other people's comments in considered vandalism. Removing the comments which disagree with your POV is not the way you should conduct a vote.  Also, you have not done much to publicise this vote - have a look at what Steve did to publicise the previous vote.  Your actions make it difficult to assume good faith.  Guettarda 19:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not respecting the guidelines laid out for voting is considered a departure from Civility. It says in the instructions "limit comments to 1 sentence". Many votes do not allow comments at all. I do not care what your POV is, I care if your comments are a paragraph long. And saying that I have not done much to publicize this vote is not true. Here are the pages I have publicized this vote on:
 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
 * Eras/Compromise proposal
 * Goings-on
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * I would really like to know what, exactly, you think my agenda is. This proposal is quite obviously an attempt to find compromise and consensus between two deeply entrenched camps. Attacking me personally will not help your position (a position which I think is quite valid, BTW, although I do not agree with it personally). Kaldari 20:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleting other people's comments is still vandalism, and you will be reverted if you decide to do so. Proteus (Talk) 20:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Spamming a vote page which specifically instructes that discussion is to be limited to the talk pages is vandalism. Kaldari 20:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * So, how about moving comments here instead of deleting them outright? siafu 20:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's probably a good idea. I'll just leave them for now though. Hopefully other editors can follow the instructions. Kaldari 21:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. You can't just define "vandalism" yourself, you know. Proteus (Talk) 21:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case, please show me where it is written that deleting other people's comments is vandalism. Kaldari 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Polls are evil
Just thought I'd remind everyone. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this a vote on whether polls are evil or on the proposal? And does it take into account that sometimes some evils are necessary ones? 12:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a satirical poll on whether polls are evil. (SEWilco 02:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC))

Agree

 * 1) Agree.  Polls are evil. (SEWilco 07:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC))
 * 2) Agree - this poll is especially evil, since the issue previously tore the community apart just a few months ago.  Why bring all that bad blood back, why re-open old wounds?  Guettarda 13:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree

 * 1) Aye.  Mostly because I wanted to say "aye" in the "nay" section, but also trying to balance out the "aye aye" votes.  :-p  Tomer TALK  09:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) The point of this proposal is to try to find common ground. Whether it works is a different question. Maurreen 17:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * But how can it find "common ground" without addressing the underlying problems? After the last vote Jguk was gone and Slrubenstein had largely dropped out of sight.  It resulted in a rash of personal attacks and insults which hurt the community.  This proposal addresses neither the issues raised in that vote, nor those that were riased in the original Eras proposal.  It simply ignored all that had gone before.  The underlying intentions may have been good (I can't judge what was in people's heads, so I must assume good faith), but they lacked any thought as to consequence.  Guettarda 18:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Consensus threshold
The 3 most commonly used consensus thresholds are 66%, 70%, and 80%. Changes to official policy or votes for admin priviledges usually require 80%. The threshold for more trivial matters like Picture of the Week is usually 66%. Since the Manual of Style is neither official policy nor trivial it falls in the middle threshold like most other non-binding resolutions: 70%. Please do not change this threshold without discussion. Kaldari 20:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is effectively a policy proposal. It should require an 80%+ threshold. Anything less will just lead to further arguments and divisiveness. Also, I don't think it appropriate for someone to launch a vote after a fortnight's lack of activity on a topic and try to enforce a low threshold for the vote. I have therefore changed it back to 80%, which is the usual consensus threshold. Please do not change it back, jguk 07:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe we should have a vote on this. Maurreen 07:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Tee hee (although personally I prefer SEWilco's joke directly above):) jguk 07:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying it requires an 80% consensus to change the required consensus from 70% ? 12:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I intended a diplomatic way of saying that people shouldn't change a voting format while the vote is in progress. That is confusing at best. Anyone who disagreed with the way the vote was set up should have brought their concerns to the talk page and not decided to make unilateral changes. Maurreen 12:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * And Jguk, you were quite happy to make changes to the style guide without even a majority. Maurreen 12:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * BTW, it seems that even many official policy votes only require 70%. See, for example, Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD. Jguk, what is your reasoning behind terming 70% a "low threshold"? Kaldari 19:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised - although the point seems to be moot in the examples you give (and going by the votes on this proposal so far, it seems to be moot here too). If you look on RfA, for example, you'll see that whenever there's a decision below 80% it leads to a lot of controversy. Given that the details of this have caused much acrimony (albeit limited to a restricted number of articles), we really should insist on 80%. I say this knowing that many proposals that I would find acceptable would be rejected because of this high threshold - but I think if we are going to resolve anything a high threshold is an absolute must, jguk 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Kaldari has read the guideline on consensus correctly, IMO. Changes in policy require a 70% majority. Period. Sunray 07:10, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand...
...what the point of this proposal is. If BC/AD is POV, it is just as POV (perhaps much more so) to use it for articles about Christianity. If it is no more POV than BCE/CE, then it should be favored regardless. At any rate, I find this whole thing ridiculous. No matter if we call it "BCE" or "BC," our date for the Buddha is still going to be based on how many years before Dionysius Exiguus's miscalculated date for the birth of Christ he lived. No matter if we call it "AD" or "CE," our date for Muhammad is still going to be based on how many years after that same miscalculated date he lived. It's the same dating system, just given a different name. I shall restate my suggestion that the only truly NPOV dating system would be to use the Seleucid Era (S.E.) for all dates. Since it has no specific connotations to anyone living, it cannot possibly be offensive to anyone. For years before 312 BC, I suggest we invent the conception of B.S.E. (before the Seleucid Era). I await any comments on this suggestion. john k 22:13, 15 July 2316 (SE, UTC)
 * Technically, there is little in the way of POV problems with a number of different systems, either extant or newly invented. While your proposal is admirable, it's not a novel approach.  The problem is that wikipedia reports, it doesn't advocate or invent.  :-/  Tomer TALK  22:22, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, let me be clear that my "proposal" was wholly facetious. john k 22:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. I couldn't help but notice that you used "BC" in your proposal. :-p  I have thought perhaps we should invent systems such as Before Sighting/After Sighting Santa, etc.  Obviously, I'm just being a little feces too.  Tomer TALK  22:33, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that the two systems use the same timeframe for numbering is a good thing, IMHO, as it to a very great extent alleviates the problem of addressing the readership that jguk puts forward. They use exactly the same numbers, so no one is going to be overly shocked or challenged by switching from one to the other.  Moreover, the NUMBERS used (particularly the year 1) don't actually correspond to the actual birthyear of Jesus of Nazareth, which means to me at least that using that particular year as year one is NPOV enough, so long as the POV label is removed. Regardless, I feel the need to reiterate that even for those who have an objection to points 2 or 3 should consider supporting #4 simply on the basis that it can be inferred from existing guidelines already, and will provide a basis by which edit wars can be resolved. siafu 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, I think calling the BC/AD marker POV is dubious. Particularly BC.  But, in general, the basic fact is that, whatever the religious meanings these terms may have initially had, they are essentially meaningless - one can use BC/AD without believing that Jesus is either the Christ or the Lord (indeed, I believe neither of these things, and I would normally use these terms).  To assert that these terms actually have a genuine religious meaning that might be offensive seems questionable to me - perhaps even insulting to those of us who use these terms without being Christians.  As to #4, I see no particular reason to support it, because it is not a policy change, nor even a restatement of an existing specific policy. It is simply a restatement of a very vague general policy in a specific context.  john k 05:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some evidence for this assertion - you are making a bold statement, that words don't mean what they say. We can't base policy on "I think" and "I feel" - NPOV clearly states that we cannot endorse a POV.  BC states that Jesus is the Christ.  If it has been diluted the the point where it means nothing to anyone, then there must be some articles somewhere dealing with teh shift in the meaning.  Can you support your opinion?  Similarly, gievn that it offends people, it must have meaning at least to those people.  You say "To assert that these terms actually have a genuine religious meaning...seems questionable to me".  You ask for evidence that the words mean what they mean.  The onus is upon those who assert that the words don't mean what they mean to prove their case.  I have asked time and again, in the various incarnations, for any evidence... Can you supply some?  We are supposed to be dealing in the realm of verifiable information.  Can someone please verify this statement?  Guettarda 07:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * How is one meant to prove a negative? The basic fact is that when people use BC and AD most do not believe they are making a statement of Christian belief.  I use these terms, and am not a Christian.  It seems to me that this is rather like the "ceremonial deism" that allows "In God We Trust" to be written on US currency - essentially, the terms (BC and AD) have been so stripped of conscious religious meaning that their literal meaning is essentially irrelevant.  I'm not sure how I can provide "proof" - why would somebody write an article on something which is utterly unremarkable and which occurred imperceptibly hundreds of years ago (certainly, from the Enlightenment on, you're going to find instances of non-Christians using BC and AD terminology).  So Non-Christians (in the west) used BC/AD for hundreds of years without complaint until quite recently, when the BCE/CE idea was created.  I find it continually insulting that people claim that I am somehow pushing a Christian POV because I want to use the standard name for the standard dating system which has been used for hundreds of years.  Are you really trying to argue that whenever you read a book which uses BC/AD terminology, you believe that book to be trying to push its Christian POV on you?  Because that's what it means to say using BC/AD is POV.  At any rate, BCE/CE is a complete euphemism.  Why is it the "Common Era?"  Why does Dionysius Exiguus's misdating of the birth of Christ define the "Common Era"?  This seems to be just as insulting and POV, if not more so, as far as I'm concerned.  At least BC/AD acknowledges that it is a calendar based on a Christian system.  BCE/CE tries to pretend that a calendar based on a Christian system is somehow universal. (Note: I don't really think that either usage is terribly POV, but if you think about it hard enough, it's obvious that both can be interpreted in such a way.) john k 13:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * John, I sympathise with your sentiments. To make matters even more confusing twice as many regard CE as meaning “Christian Era” as those who regard is as meaning “Common Era”.  Just do a goggle search on “CE Christian-Era” and “CE Common-Era”.  If that is insufficient to confuse, there are those who say that it means “Current Era”.  While, CE is really a stamp on just about every manufactured or processed item to indicate that it conforms to European Law!  It seems the religion and its denial is important to some people.  They like to say CE, meaning “Christian Era” to emphasize their religion, while others enjoy CE meaning “Common Era” to emphasize their rejection.  The French Revolution had the same idea; it changed the dates to “suppress superstition”.  By Napoleons time, they got sense and reverted.  Fortunately this CE/BCE notation is used only by a minority (again do a Google on any term and BC and then that term and BCE).  We need another Napoleon! ;) --ClemMcGann 15:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite frankly, the only thing that I'm genuinely hoping will come out of this is a clear statement ("in writing") that the choice of era notation for a particular article is bound by consensus from the discussion for that article. I know this sounds obvious as a guideline, but I would point to the edit wars that have occured as a result of this controversy as evidence of the need for such a clear statement.  So long as that is made absolutely clear, there will at least be a guideline for moving forward when such conflicts erupt again in the future, as they surely will. Hence, my request of the community (or rather, the segment that's paying attention to this) to support that statement as we have it here-- sentence #4.  If you think it's just a restatement of existing policy, then support it, there's no reason not to and worse is not better. siafu 03:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

What about B.W. and A.W. (Before Wikipedia and Anno Wikipediae)? 12:25, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

A true compromise
How's this for a compromise... to get rid of the bickering once and for all, rather than using 'AD' and 'CE' all over the pedia, we should simply not use either of them. Simply refer to a year as 1980 and everyone will understand which year that is. This does not solve the issue of 'BC' or 'BCE' years but that doesn't come up all that often in the first place. Radiant_ >|< 14:44, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Its already as you said: Normally you should use plain numbers for years [...] (in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Eras (current version). The problem already is (only?) for when that doesn't apply. See the current dating on Jesus birth: somewhere between 6 BC/BCE and 6 AD/CE. A mess... completely confusing for anyone not aware of this discussion. That's to say what? 99.9% of WP readers? - Nabla 17:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're telling me that we've gone through all these debates and votes, and it really only applies to four or five articles about events close to the year zero? Radiant_ >|< 08:24, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly - it still applies to BC/BCE. Secondly, there are more than five articles where one has to specify.  Any time you have been talking about BC dates, and want to switch over to talking about AD dates, you have to use AD/CE. john k 13:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We could take the geek approach and simply use negative numbers. Radiant_ >|< 07:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Which would be just as confusing for most readers as BCE --ClemMcGann 10:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Style sheets already!
I am so tired of this. It will be well worth a developer's time to hack up stylesheet support for this. we can then have 2001, and people will be able to choose if they want to see -5 CE, 6 BCE or 6 BC. Hell, they'll even be able to customize Hijra or Middle-earth calendars. This is only a question of representation for crying out loud, and like font, background colour and what not, it should be rendered client-side. The only exception will of course be discussion of calendars and Common Era itself, where the template will not be usable, because the notation will be part of the statement. dab (ᛏ) 18:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They should also implement style support for 12 vs. 24 hour clock and metric vs. imperial measurements while they're at it, although I haven't heard about any work on these areas yet, unfortunately. Kaldari 19:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the nice thing will be that Wikipedia will become more machine-readable. 2001 and June 29, 2024

will be so much more parseable than numbers scattered over the text. dab (ᛏ) 08:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have already suggested (on TFD, funnily enough) that a new MAGICNUMBER attribute, YEAR#NNN, be created. Much like " ISBN 0091801788 " generates ISBN 0091801788, it would auto-generate a link to that year's page AND change BCE/BC to the format specified in your preferences. That would be quicker and easier to type than a template. And it can't be hard to code in either. See what you think. GarrettTalk 23:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a serious flaw in this proposal in that it may just move the argument over to what the default setting will be. I don't know the statistics but I think it probable that most people viewing Wiki (as opposed to editing) don't register.  If something could be added so that the default setting is random for unregistered users then that might well solve things.Dejvid 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * ?!? What the... (miscellany expletives in English and Latin go here) ...I hadn't thought of that. Well, I don't think true randomising is such a good idea, I mean, if you read a page that says BC all through and then follow a link and then come back to it and it says BCE you're gonna be considering professional help. :) BUT the randomising could be based on the last digit of the IP, so that, say, even numbers get BC/AD and odd get BCE/CE. If that's even possible. Hm, unless it reads "BC/BCE" for anon readers and only when you *stipulate* do you get one or the other. That's also possible. Certainly any of these are more involved than my solution was meant to be, but as you say that could spawn more arguments. GarrettTalk 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * BC/BCE for anonymous readers seems to me to be the best solution and if that is possible I'd support this proposal. Would having three options like that make it harder to implement? Dejvid 15:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Simplifying -- I expect the default would just be the form used to by whoever typed it in. Isn't that the way it is with dates? I never chose a date preference. I get both versions. Maurreen (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * We'd need a developer to do this properly, but I can't see why it shouldn't be done, in the same way that DD/MM/YY and MM/DD/YY dates are already done. I'm quite willing to volunteer to help sort out what needs doing, but as I don't know how to program, we'll still need a friendly developer to do it. Any suggestions of where to find one? jguk 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

An alternative approach to avoiding edit wars on era names
I've voted for this proposal but I have real doubts that it would help at all. The approach seems to fix certain pages as one notation over another but most of relevant pages will still have to be decided by consensus. First off consensus on this isn't really possible. Either one writes BC or one writes BCE  it has to be one or the other. Even if we decide on BC/BCE thruout it is still a fixed solution with none of the give and take of consensus. Saying that consensus decides is really saying that there should be a presumption in favor of the status quo - it might be worth saying that explicitly.

Yesterday there was a little edit war over this. In was entirely over inconsistent pages but still generated much heat. I wish I could say that I was too sensible to get involved. I can't. Here are my thoughts on things that might help.
 * 1) Have a rule like the 3 revert rule which says that no one can change the era naming on more than one page a day. A week would be better but that is probably unenforcable.
 * 2) Consistent era naming is nice but we should recognize that clumsy moves to consistency can spark edit wars so the presumption in favor of the status quo should still apply even where this involves a mixture of BCE and BC.
 * 3) Lets be a bit more prescriptive about what kind of agreement is needed before the naming of eras on a page is changed.

Though not exactly a newbee, I haven't been much involved in this side of Wiki so I apologize if this is the wrong place to post this.Dejvid 18:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The stupidest thing in this whole dispute is that readers' interests are completely ignored. We're meant to be an international encyclopaedia with as broad as possible a readership. You'd have thought it was obvious to use terminology that every English-reader understands and is familiar with, rather than terminology that has absolutely no currency amongst the general public in the overwhelming majority of the world. But hey - when did commonsense and the interests of the project as a whole have a place in this debate? :) jguk 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Both sides have good reasons for their positions. Both conventions are used in the outside world. It is unrealistic to expect us to agree to one convention or the other. Hence we have to decide how to handle a situation where people will disagree.Dejvid 22:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not true to say both conventions are used in the outside world. BCE/CE has absolutely no currency that I've seen amongst the British general public (I've never seen it used here in my 31 years). I also understand it has no currency in India either. As far as how to handle the situation, even in the places in the world where BCE/CE is used, apart from in Israel, which is primarily a Hebrew-speaking country, BC/AD is preferred by that population by a long, long way (ie 90%+). I'm surprised we're even arguing this - for any other word/construction, WP would always go for the common form, jguk 06:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * jguk, it is beyond me why you continue to pretend that BCE/CE has anything to do with Israel. Israel is a Hebrew and Arabic speaking country - they don't use BCE/CE or BC/AD, and this has been explained to you before.  BCE/CE is an English convention used in English speaking countries. As for your other claims about it having no currency in Britain or India, here's a source combining both which uses it, the Hindustan Times UK edition:, and here's an example of it in the India Times:  Jayjg (talk)  06:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Dejvid, I like your ideas. Maurreen (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Cease-fire on eras
I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The only lasting solution would be if we found a friendly developer who was willing to allow user preferences to be set so that those who want to see BCE/CE can, and those who don't select that option see BC/AD. It strikes me that it would be better to see what actually would need doing before approaching developers, and to that end I have started User preferences for BCE/CE notation. Hopefully we can all work together for a solution - and then all vote for it to be added in Bugzilla (or whatever) and genuine resolution at last, jguk 18:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, deus ex machina to solve all our problems. One correction to what you have said Jguk:  Those who don't select the option (BCE/CE or BC/AD) will see what is there now.  So in a way, it wouldn't really change anything.  We have to work it out on an article by article basis, applying the policy framework currently in place.  I really don't see anyway around that.  Sunray 22:09, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

"...those who don't select that option see BC/AD"? Why, Jguk, would you assume that would be the default? Meanwhile, user preferences really only affect editors who've created Wikipedia accounts, not general readers, so I don't see what this would do for anyone. -- M P er el ( talk 05:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've also suggested at the Village pump to remove or refine the style guide's call for consistency. I hope to see your comments there, either way. Thanks.

Wouldn't the programming function be along the lines =IF(user preference for bce selected, use bce, otherwise use bc)? Seems more straightforward that =IF(are user preferences set, another IF function, otherwise something else). On MPerel's other point, BC is by far and away the most common notation worldwide, with a 90%+ preference and 99%+ intelligibility, so it seems like the best default. Though this is getting ahead of ourselves. Maybe you could help complete User preferences for BCE/CE notation and then we can go see if we can find a friendly developer to program it in, jguk 11:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


text: User talk:148.244.150.58

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

title: User talk:148.244.150.58


text: Category:Etiquette

title: Category:Etiquette


text:
Caprellidira

Caprellidira is a parvorder of marine crustaceans of the infraorder Corophiida. The group includes skeleton shrimps (Caprellidae) and whale lice (Cyamidae).

Fifteen families are currently recognised in the group. They are grouped into seven superfamilies.

 * Superfamily Aetiopedesoidea Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Aetiopedesidae Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Paragammaropsidae Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Superfamily Caprelloidea Leach, 1814
 * Caprellidae Leach, 1814 - Skeleton shrimps
 * Caprogammaridae Kudrjaschov & Vassilenko, 1966
 * Cyamidae Rafinesque, 1815 - Whale lice
 * Dulichiidae Laubitz, 1983
 * Podoceridae Leach, 1814
 * Superfamily Isaeoidea Dana, 1853
 * Isaeidae Dana, 1853
 * Superfamily Microprotopoidea Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Australomicroprotopidae Myers, Lowry & Billingham, 2016
 * Microprotopidae Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Superfamily Neomegamphopoidea Myers, 1981
 * Neomegamphopidae Myers, 1981
 * Priscomilitariidae Hirayama, 1988
 * Superfamily Photoidea Boeck, 1871
 * Ischyroceridae Stebbing, 1899
 * Kamakidae Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Photidae Boeck, 1871
 * Superfamily Rakirooidea Myers & Lowry, 2003
 * Rakiroidae Myers & Lowry, 2003

title: Caprellidira


text: User talk:148.244.150.52

title: User talk:148.244.150.52


text:
Woldemar Brinkmann

Woldemar Brinkmann (1890–1959) was a German architect and interior designer, he is associated with Nazi architecture.

Biography
Woldemar Brinkmann was born on 12 March 1890 in Hamburg, Germany. From 1915 until 1923 he training at the Hamburg School of Applied Arts (now University of Fine Arts of Hamburg). He worked with Paul Troost on several projects including an unbuilt Opera House that would have seated 3,000 people, three times as big as the Paris Opera or Vienna State Opera.

Brinkmann died on 31 December 1959 in Hamburg, Germany.

Literature

 * Baugilde. Zeitschrift für die Deutschen Architekten – Baukunst, Bautechnik, Bauwirtschaft (i.e. The architect's guild. Journal for the German architects – architectural art, technology, and economics), 21. Jahrgang, Heft 2, 01/15/1939, page 43

title: Woldemar Brinkmann


text:
User talk:Iluvpurin

Welcome!
Hello Iluvpurin, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
 * Experiment in the sandbox.
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
 * Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
 * Be bold in updating pages.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
 * And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

title: User talk:Iluvpurin


text:
User talk:Tiggs000

Welcome!
Hello Tiggs000, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
 * Experiment in the sandbox.
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
 * Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
 * Be bold in updating pages.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
 * And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

Thanks bcat Tiggs000 03:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging
Hi, when you upload images make sure you include source info (where is the image from, who hold the copyright to it), and a so called "copyright tag" template. Images without this information will be deleted, images with obvious status such as Image:Maddogje.jpg might get "fixed" by others, like I just did, but please don't rely on this. It creates extra work, and if the image is from a non-obvious source it will be deleted. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Gnr lies.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Gnr lies.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tiggs000


text: User talk:200.67.149.183

title: User talk:200.67.149.183


text:
User talk:Witewave

Welcome!
Hello Witewave, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Read the tutorial and learn how to edit a page.
 * Experiment in the sandbox.
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Try to edit from a neutral point of view.
 * Use talk pages to communicate with other editors.
 * Be bold in updating pages.
 * Eventually, read the Manual of Style and learn about the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.
 * And most importantly, have fun!

If you need any help, see the help pages and glossary, add a question to the help desk, or ask me on my talk page.

I hope you will enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Good luck! — Bcat

title: User talk:Witewave


text:
Talk:Dinan Cars

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Montana State University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Spring term.

Above message substituted from on 15:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Vote for Deletion
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here, under the article's original name. -Splash 02:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dinan Cars


text:
August Rush

August Rush is a 2007 American musical drama film directed by Kirsten Sheridan and produced by Richard Barton Lewis. The screenplay is by Nick Castle and James V. Hart, with a story by Paul Castro and Castle. It involves a 10-year-old musical prodigy living in an orphanage who runs away to New York City. He begins to unravel the mystery of who he is, while his mother is searching for him and his father is searching for her. The many sounds and rhythms he hears throughout his journey culminate in a major instrumental composition that concludes with his score, "August's Rhapsody".

Plot
In 1995, Lyla Novacek is a cellist studying at the Juilliard School. Louis Connelly is the lead singer of an Irish rock band. They meet and have a one-night stand but are unable to maintain contact. Lyla discovers that she is pregnant. Following an argument with her overbearing father, she is struck by a car, forcing her to prematurely give birth. While Lyla is unconscious, her father secretly puts the baby up for adoption, telling Lyla that her son died.

Eleven years later, the baby, named Evan Taylor, is living in a boys' orphanage where he is assigned to a social worker named Richard Jeffries. Evan is a musical genius and displays savant-like abilities and perfect pitch. Convinced that his parents will find him, he runs away to New York City, "following the music" with the hope that it will lead him to his family.

He finds a boy named Arthur busking in Washington Square Park and follows him to his home in a condemned theater, where Evan is introduced to "Wizard" Wallace, a vagrant musician who teaches homeless, orphaned, and runaway children to be street performers. Wizard gives Evan a spot in Washington Square Park, assigns him the stage name "August Rush" and tries to market him to clubs. When he sees the posters that Jeffries has placed for the runaway Evan, Wizard destroys them, hoping to keep Evan for his own gain.

Louis now lives in San Francisco as a talent agent, while Lyla is a music teacher in Chicago. Louis reconnects with his brothers and decides to try to find Lyla. Lyla is called to her father's deathbed, where he confesses that her son is alive. She immediately begins to hunt for him.

Arriving at Lyla's apartment in Chicago, Louis talks to one of her neighbors, who erroneously says that she is on her honeymoon. Despairing, he ends up in New York, where he regroups his band. After Jeffries meets Wizard and Arthur on the street and becomes suspicious, the police raid the derelict theater in which Wizard and his children are living. Evan (now "August") takes refuge in a church, where he befriends a little girl named Hope, who introduces him to the piano and written music. Hope brings August and his abilities to the attention of the parish pastor, who takes August to the Juilliard school, where he impresses the faculty. A rhapsody takes shape from August's notes and homework.

In New York, Lyla goes to Jeffries's office, and Jeffries identifies August as her son. While looking for him, she starts playing the cello again and accepts an offer to perform with the New York Philharmonic at a series of concerts in Central Park. August is selected to perform at the same concert. However, Wizard interrupts the rehearsal and, claiming to be his father, pulls August out of the school.

On the day of the concert, August returns to his spot in Washington Square, while Wizard makes plans to smuggle him around the country to perform. August meets Louis and, unaware of their blood relationship, they have an impromptu guitar duet. That evening, with help from Arthur, August escapes from Wizard through the subway and heads for his concert. Louis, after his own performance with his reunited band, sees Lyla's name on a banner and also heads for the park. Jeffries finds a flyer for "August Rush" with a picture and goes to the concert.

August arrives in time to conduct his rhapsody, which attracts Lyla and Louis to the audience, where they reunite. August finishes his rhapsody and, as he turns to discover his parents, smiles, knowing that he has been right all along.

Cast

 * Freddie Highmore as Evan Taylor / "August Rush"
 * Keri Russell as Lyla Novacek, Evan's mother
 * Jonathan Rhys Meyers as Louis Connelly, Evan's father
 * Terrence Howard as Counselor Richard Jeffries
 * Robin Williams as Maxwell "Wizard" Wallace
 * William Sadler as Thomas Novacek, Lyla's father and Evan's maternal grandfather
 * Marian Seldes as Dean Alice MacNeil
 * Mykelti Williamson as Reverend James
 * Leon Thomas III as Arthur
 * Aaron Staton as Nick
 * Alex O'Loughlin as Marshall Connelly, Louis' older brother and Evan's paternal uncle
 * Jamia Simone Nash as Hope
 * Ronald Guttman as The Professor
 * Bonnie McKee as Lizzy
 * Timothy Mitchum as Joey
 * Becki Newton as Jennifer
 * Michael Drayer as Mannix
 * Tablo as Clarinet player (uncredited cameo)
 * Koo Hye-sun as Girl on couch (cameo)

Music

 * "Moondance": written by Van Morrison; performed by Jonathan Rhys Meyers
 * "This Time": written by Chris Trapper; performed by Jonathan Rhys Meyers
 * "Bari Improv": written by Mark Mancina and Kaki King; performed by Kaki King
 * "Ritual Dance": written by Michael Hedges; performed by Kaki King
 * "Raise It Up": written by Impact Repertory Theatre; performed by Jamia Simone Nash and Impact Repertory Theatre; nominated for an Academy Award for Best Original Song
 * "Dueling Guitars": written by Heitor Pereira; performed by Heitor Pereira and Doug Smith
 * "Someday": written by J. Stephens; performed by John Legend
 * "King of the Earth": written and Performed by John Ondrasik
 * "God Bless the Child": written by Arthur Herzog, Jr. and Billie Holiday; performed by Chris Botti and Paula Cole
 * "La Bamba": performed by Leon Thomas III
 * "August's Rhapsody"; written by Mark Mancina

The final number with Lyla and Louis begins with Lyla playing the Adagio-Moderato from Edward Elgar's Cello Concerto in E Minor.

Except for "Dueling Guitars", all of August's guitar pieces are played by American guitarist-composer Kaki King. King's hands are used in closeups for August Rush.

Composer Mark Mancina spent more than a year and a half composing the score of August Rush. "The heart of the story is how we respond and connect through music. It's about this young boy who believes that he's going to find his parents through his music. That's what drives him." The final theme of the movie was composed first. "That way I could take bits and pieces of the ending piece and relate it to the things that are happening in (August's) life. All of the themes are pieces of the puzzle, so at the end it means something because you've been subliminally hearing it throughout the film." The score was recorded at the Todd-AO Scoring Stage and the Eastwood Scoring Stage at Warner Bros.

Production
In March 2003, it was announced Nick Castle had been hired to write August Rush from an idea by producer Richard B. Lewis and screenwriter Paul Castro for Ovation Entertainment. In September 2004, Kirsten Sheridan was announced as director, as well as providing a rewrite of the script.

Reception
August Rush received mixed reviews from film critics. The film holds a 37% approval rating on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, based on 123 reviews, with an average rating of 4.83/10. The site's consensus reads: "Though featuring a talented cast, August Rush cannot overcome the flimsy direction and schmaltzy plot." On Metacritic, the film has an average score of 38 out of 100, based on 27 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews".

In a review by USA Today, Claudia Puig commented, "August Rush will not be for everyone, but it works if you surrender to its lilting and unabashedly sentimental tale of evocative music and visual poetry."

The Hollywood Reporter reviewed the film positively, writing, "The story is about musicians and how music connects people, so the movie's score and songs, created by composers Mark Mancina and Hans Zimmer, give poetic whimsy to an implausible tale."

Pam Grady of the San Francisco Chronicle called the film "an inane musical melodrama". Grady said that "the entire story is ridiculous" and that the coincidences pile on, behavior and motivations defy logic, and the characters are so thinly drawn that most of the cast is at a loss"

Edward Douglas of comingsoon.net said that it "does not take long for the movie to reveal itself as an extremely contrived and predictable movie that tries too hard to tug on the heartstrings".

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the movie three stars out of 4, calling it "a movie drenched in sentimentality, but it's supposed to be. The movie also came to a very sudden end, leaving it unfinished."

A few critics suggested that the film is essentially a musical adaptation of Dickens's Oliver Twist.

Awards
Despite the mixed reception, August Rush was praised for its music. The song "Raise It Up" was nominated for Best Original Song at the 80th Academy Awards, but lost to Once.

Stage adaptation
A musical theater adaptation of August Rush premiered on May 3, 2019, at the Paramount Theatre in Aurora, Illinois. The book was written by Glen Berger, the music was composed by Mark Mancina, and the lyrics were written by both Berger and Mancina. The play was directed by John Doyle.

title: August Rush


text: User talk:195.169.128.221

title: User talk:195.169.128.221


text: User talk:202.84.100.45

title: User talk:202.84.100.45


text:
Eddie Guardado

Edward Adrian Guardado (born October 2, 1970) is an American former Major League Baseball relief pitcher and current bullpen coach. Guardado played in Major League Baseball (MLB) for the Minnesota Twins (–, ), Seattle Mariners (–), Cincinnati Reds (–), and the Texas Rangers (Two separate stints in and ). He was named as a bullpen coach for the Twins in 2014.

His common nickname is "Everyday Eddie", a testament to his durable arm during his first stint with the Twins. Over Eddie's career, he appeared in 908 games. Only 22 other pitchers have appeared in more games.

Minnesota Twins
Guardado was drafted by the Minnesota Twins in the 21st round (570th overall) of the 1990 Major League Baseball draft. For several years, the Twins attempted to use Guardado as a starter, but in 1996, he was converted exclusively to a relief pitcher and did not start another Major League game. That season, he led the majors in games pitched with 83. In September 2001, Guardado became the Twins' closer, replacing LaTroy Hawkins. In 2002, he broke Rick Aguilera's 11-year-old Twins team record for games saved, saving 45 games. He followed that up with 41 saves in 2003. After that season, he became a free agent.

Seattle Mariners
On December 9, 2003, Guardado signed a one-year contract with the Seattle Mariners worth a guaranteed $13 million. The deal also included player and team options for the 2005 and 2006 seasons. In 2004, Guardado saved 18 games and posted a 2.78 earned run average in 41 appearances, but suffered a torn rotator cuff and missed the last two months of the season. In 2005, he set the Mariners' record for consecutive saves at 27, which was later broken by J. J. Putz. On May 4, 2006, after three blown saves in less than three weeks, Guardado was temporarily removed from the closer role with the Mariners. Manager Mike Hargrove stated, "We're just trying to get him to step back from the edge a little bit, get himself going a little bit so we can get him back out there again and be the closer like we know he can."

Cincinnati Reds
On July 6, 2006, Guardado was traded to the Cincinnati Reds along with cash considerations in exchange for minor league pitcher Travis Chick. He converted eight of his first nine save situations with the Reds. In August, Guardado was placed on the disabled list after injuring his elbow. He later underwent Tommy John surgery in September, causing him to miss the rest of the season.

On February 5, 2007, Guardado returned to the Reds and signed a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training. He made his season debut on August 9 after an intense rehab, giving up two hits and a sacrifice fly that allowed the Los Angeles Dodgers to tie the game at 4–4. The Dodgers eventually won 5–4 in 11 innings.

Later career
On January 11, 2008, Guardado signed a one-year contract with the Texas Rangers. On August 25, 2008, Guardado was traded back to the Minnesota Twins for minor league pitcher Mark Hamburger. On February 3, 2009, Guardado returned to the Rangers on a minor league contract and was invited to spring training. In 48 games with the Rangers in 2009, Guardado went 1–2 with a 4.46 ERA.

After considering retirement during the 2009-10 offseason, Guardado decided to come back to baseball by agreeing to terms on a minor league deal with the Washington Nationals on December 26, 2009. On March 11, 2010, Guardado was released by the Nationals. In August, he acknowledged that his playing days had come to an end, saying "I'm looking to add another chapter in my life, and that's to be a father to my three children, which I absolutely love." Through 2021, he holds the MLB record for the longest streak without allowing a triple: it was 551 games, dating to the end of his career. The last person to hit a triple off Guardado was Tony Graffanino back in September 1999.

Post-Major League career
Guardado previously served as a special assistant for the Twins during Spring Training and coaches minor league pitchers.

On January 25, 2013, Guardado was elected to the Minnesota Twins Hall Of Fame along with long-time Media Relations Director, Tom Mee.

In the summer of 2014, he was the head coach for the Tustin, California Little League All-Stars. On November 19, 2014, Guardado was named bullpen coach for the Minnesota Twins. He was fired on October 31, 2018.

Personal life
He is married to Lisa Limbaugh and the couple have three children. Their oldest son, Niko, is a cast member on the 2020 TV series Party of Five.

title: Eddie Guardado


text:
Late fee

A late fee, also known as an overdue fine, late fine, or past due fee, is a charge fined against a client by a company or organization for not paying a bill or returning a rented or borrowed item by its due date. Its use is most commonly associated with businesses like creditors, video rental outlets and libraries. Late fees are generally calculated on a per day, per item basis.

Organizations encourage the payment of late fees by suspending a client's borrowing or rental privileges until accumulated fees are paid, sometimes after these fees have exceeded a certain level. Late fees are issued to people who do not pay on time and don't honor a lease or obligation for which they are responsible.

Library fine
Library fines, also known as overdue fines, late fees, or overdue fees, are small daily or weekly fees that libraries in many countries charge borrowers after a book or other borrowed item is kept past its due date. Library fines are an enforcement mechanism designed to ensure that library books are returned within a certain period of time and to provide increasing penalties for late items. Library fines do not typically accumulate over years or decades. Fines are usually assessed for only a few days or months, until a pre-set limit is reached.

Library fines are a small percentage of overall library budgets, but lost, stolen or un-returned library books can be costly for various levels of government that fund.

History
In the late 1800s, as modern circulating libraries began making checking out books possible for the general public, concerns rose about books being taken out and never returned. To encourage the return of books and to help fund the replacement acquisition of new books, libraries began assessing a fee on late books. For example, when the Aberdeen Free Library in Scotland opened in 1886, borrowers were fined a penny a week for every week a book was held longer than a fortnight.

Public libraries in New York began charging overdue fees in the late 1800s at a rate of 1 cent/day. That increased to 2 cents/day in 1954 and 5 cents/day in 1959. Before removing late fees in October 2021, the most common fee among New York City public libraries was 25 cents/day.

Elimination of fines
In recent years, many libraries have stopped charging fines. The Public Library Association and the Association of Library Services to Children have asked libraries to reconsider policies that may keep poor teens away for fear of fines. Many libraries also offer alternatives and amnesties in order to encourage patrons to return overdue books. "Food for Fines" programs, in which borrowers donate canned food in exchange for fine forgiveness, are common in libraries all over the world. Some libraries offer children and teens the option to "read down" their fines by reducing fines based on the amount of time spent reading or the number of books read. Other libraries may block access to library privileges until materials are returned. Librarians have had a longstanding debate over whether or not to charge late fines.

The American Library Association's (ALA) Policy 61 entitled, “Library Services to the Poor,” promotes the removal of all barriers to library and information services, particularly fees and overdue charges. Proponents for the elimination of fines argue for waiving fees if they are a barrier for continued use of the library. They argue that it is imperative that the library staff understand its patrons' financial situations, and that the barrier-to-use posed by fines is an underlying problem that needs to be addressed. Gehner (2010) proposed that libraries work with the community to determine the community's need and to build relationships. He also posited that overdue fines could be a limiting factor: since libraries face limited funding, fees and fines represent both a source of revenue and a barrier to use.

In 2019, the ALA published its "Resolution on Monetary Library Fines as a Form of Social Inequity", which described monetary fines as an economic barrier to access to library materials and services, as well as a barrier to public relations and more valuable use of library staff time. Considered contrary to the mission of the modern public library, the ALA called for libraries to eliminate such barriers. Later that year, due to the economic hardship of the COVID-19 pandemic, many libraries suspended fines for late materials. Realizing the ability of their systems to absorb the economic costs of eliminating fines, many library systems eventually made the decision to go completely fine-free, long after the pandemic restrictions were lifted.

Enforcement
Some libraries have stepped up enforcement and collection of late fees. People who do not return library property after an extended period of time may face arrest or a negative action on their credit reports in some jurisdictions. Punitive measures such as these are typically used to recover stolen library property, not to enforce late fees. In some institutions, patrons are responsible for paying the cost of replacing lost items.

Postage
A special use of the term "late fee" is postal surcharge once required by post offices to expedite delivery of a letter posted later than the normal pick-up time. For example, in Britain in 1856, a letter could be included in the night's mail for an extra pence if by 6:45 p.m. at the local office, for a tuppence by 7:15 p.m. at the Chief or District office, or for four pence by 7:30 p.m. at the Chief office. Such mail typically received a special postmark to note the late fee paid. Often a special Late Fee Box was provided.

Poverty
Late fees charged by banks, landlords, and utilities have been heavily criticized as a penalty against the poor, and attempts have been made in some places to outlaw them completely or place caps on them. The argument against them is that the poor will inevitably be forced to pay them as they cannot earn the money to pay their bills by the due date. These people will be forced to pay even higher fees for the same services, and will find making future timely payments to their creditors even more difficult.

On the other hand, late fees are sometimes levied by freelancers when payments to them are delayed. In this case, late payments can help protect non-staffers against income instability.

title: Late fee


text:
User talk:BrainInAVat

Welcome!
Hello, BrainInAVat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

 * If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages with  so others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
 * The handy Manual of Style
 * And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango  123  02:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page. :)

 * Thanks for the thanks! I'm glad you finally joined. Sango  123  20:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Unknownmusic.ogg
Thanks for uploading Image:Unknownmusic.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:BrainInAVat


text:
Strange Meeting

Strange Meeting may refer to:

 * Strange Meeting (novel), by Susan Hill
 * "Strange Meeting" (poem), by Wilfred Owen

title: Strange Meeting


text: User talk:203.187.176.185

title: User talk:203.187.176.185


text: User talk:86.193.235.206

title: User talk:86.193.235.206


text:
Talk:Mucky Fingers

Why I redirected
I don't think that this article should exist, at least for now. The song isn't a single, and probably won't be. There is little to say about it, and even that is of no major significance.

title: Talk:Mucky Fingers


text:
Patlabor: The TV Series

Patlabor: The TV Series, known in Japan as Patlabor The Mobile Police: On Television (機動警察パトレイバー ON TELEVISION), is a 1989-1990 anime television series. It was created by Headgear, animated by Sunrise, and based on the Patlabor anime franchise. The story focuses on Second Special Vehicles Division (SV2), a group of Patlabor policemen who fight and investigate crimes. The TV series is an alternate timeline to the original Patlabor OVAs and films, with an all-new origin story.

Development
The television series was animated by Sunrise and was directed by Naoyuki Yoshinaga.

With the success of the first movie, Patlabor became one of the first OVAs to be ported to TV. Originally planned for 24 episodes, (up to the end of Kanuka's practicum at SV2), the series was extended twice. First to 36 episodes, to cover the conflict with Schaft, and then to 47 episodes in order to conclude the series. Later in the story, Kanuka Clancy leaves and a new character is introduced in Takeo Kumagami, a character originally shown in the manga, episodes 26 through 35 even being more closely based on the manga. The Patlabor: The New Files OVAs are a follow-up to the series.

At the request of the sponsor, toy manufacturer Bandai, the TV series was to include some action with labors. (Labors are the heavy construction equipment after which this series is named.) However, the toys made for the series did not sell as well as expected.

In the original broadcast, the labors were making more metallic "kshang!" sound, but were revised to motor whirring sound like that of the movie when the whole series was released on Laserdisc.

Episodes
The 47 episodes aired on Nippon TV from October 11, 1989 to September 29, 1990.

Home video
Bandai Visual has released the television series on Laserdisc, VHS, and DVD. Two Blu-ray box sets that contain two halves of the series were released on August 27, 2010 and September 24, 2010. Central Park Media released the series (under their U.S. Manga Corps label) on subtitled VHS from July 7, 1998 to February 8, 2000, spanning nine volumes. They later released two dubbed VHS volumes from August 14, 2001 to June 11, 2002 and later dropped the rest of the VHS releases. CPM also re-released the series on DVD, spanning 11 volumes and three box sets (with the 11th volume on the 3rd box set) from August 14, 2001 to August 9, 2005. All of the DVDs are now out of print. The English dub was produced at Matlin Recording in New York City, New York. Maiden Japan re-released the TV series in North America on July 16, 2013 on DVD and Blu-ray.

Music themes

 * Opening themes:
 * "そのままの君でいて" (Sono mama no Kimi de ite - Please be as you were) by Yuko Nitou (episodes 1-34)
 * "コンディション・グリーン～緊急発進～" (Condition Green ~Kinkyuu Hasshin~ - Emergency Launch) by Hiroko Kasahara (epìsodes 35-47)

 * Ending themes:
 * "ミッドナイト ブルー" (Midnight Blue) by KISS ME QUICK (episodes 1-34)
 * "パラダイスの確率" (Paradise no Kakuritsu - Probability of Paradise) by JA-JA (episodes 35-47)

title: Patlabor: The TV Series


text:
Lane Chandler

Lane Chandler (born Robert Clinton Oakes, June 4, 1899 – September 14, 1972) was an American actor specializing mainly in Westerns.

Early life
Chandler was raised on a ranch near Culbertson, Montana, the son of a horse rancher. The family relocated to Helena, Montana, when he was a youngster, and he graduated from high school there. He briefly attended Montana Wesleyan College, but quit to drive a tour bus at Yellowstone National Park.

Career
In the early 1920s, he moved to Los Angeles, California, and started working as an auto mechanic. His real-life experiences growing up on a horse ranch landed bit parts for him in westerns from 1925, for Paramount Pictures. Studio executives suggested changing his name to Lane Chandler, and as such he began achieving leading roles opposite stars like Clara Bow, Greta Garbo, Betty Bronson and Esther Ralston. His first lead role was in The Legion of the Condemned.

As a silent film star, Chandler performed well, but when talkies arrived he was cast more in supporting roles, as in The Great Mike of 1944. He starred in a few low-budget westerns in the 1930s, but was more often cast as the leading man's partner, or saddle pal, or a sheriff or army officer. Many of his films featured alliterative titles such as Riders of the Rio (1931), Primrose Path (1931), The Cheyenne Cyclone (1931), The Hurricane Horseman (1931), Battling Buckaroo (1932), The Wyoming Whirlwind (1932), The Reckless Rider (1932), and The Texas Tornado (1932); all but one of these films starred Chandler top-billed with his name above the title. With the advent of television Chandler began making appearance on numerous series, often in Westerns such as The Lone Ranger, The Adventures of Wild Bill Hickok, Lawman, Have Gun – Will Travel, Rawhide, Maverick, Cheyenne, and Gunsmoke (as “Trumbull” in the S7E10 titled “Indian Ford” in 1961 & as “Luke” in the S8E8’s “The Trappers” in 1962); many of these TV series appearances were bit parts with no billing at all. He continued acting on TV and in films through 1966, retiring comfortably due to his holdings in both residential and commercial properties.

He died in Los Angeles of heart disease in 1972, aged 73.

Selected filmography

 * The Last Outlaw (1927) – Rancher (uncredited)
 * Open Range (1927) – Tex Smith
 * Love and Learn (1928) – Anthony Cowles
 * Red Hair (1928) (with Clara Bow) – Robert Lennon
 * The Legion of the Condemned (1928) (with Fay Wray and Gary Cooper) – Charles Holabird
 * The Big Killing (1928) – George Hicks
 * The First Kiss (1928) (with Fay Wray and Gary Cooper) – William Talbot
 * The Wolf of Wall Street (1929) – (uncredited)
 * The Studio Murder Mystery (1929) – Bill Martin (uncredited)
 * The Single Standard (1929) (with Greta Garbo) – Ding Stuart
 * The Forward Pass (1929) – "Assistant Coach Kane"
 * Firebrand Jordan (1930) – Firebrand Jordan
 * The Lightning Express (1930, Serial) – Jack Venable
 * Rough Waters (1930) – Cal Morton
 * Beyond the Law (1930) – Jack-Knife
 * Under Texas Skies (1930) – Singer Martin, Secret Service Agent
 * Riders of the Rio (1931) - Bob Lane
 * Primrose Path (1931) - Danny McGann
 * The Cheyenne Cyclone (1931) - Bob Carleton
 * The Hurricane Horseman (1931) - 'Gun' Smith
 * Guns for Hire (1932) - Flip LaRue, aka Ken Wayne
 * Battling Buckaroo (1932) - Jack Winslow
 * The Reckless Rider (1932) - 'Tex' Wilkins
 * The Wyoming Whirlwind (1932) - Keene Wallace
 * Lawless Valley (1932) - Bob Rand
 * The Texas Tornado (1932) - Tex Robbins
 * Sagebrush Trail (1933) (with John Wayne and Yakima Canutt) - Joseph Conlon, aka Bob Jones
 * Via Pony Express (1933) - Lieutenant Bob Grey
 * War of the Range (1933) - Bull Harris, Henchman
 * Trouble Busters (1933) - Jim Perkins
 * The Outlaw Tamer (1935) - 'Tex' Broderick
 * Idaho Kid (1936) - Jess Peters
 * The Magnificent Brute (1936) - Steelworker (uncredited)
 * Winds of the Wasteland (1936) (with John Wayne) - Larry Adams
 * Heroes of the Alamo (1937) – Davy Crockett
 * Come On, Rangers (1938) - Ken Rogers
 * Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938, Serial) – Flight Commander [Chs. 2–3]
 * Two Gun Justice (1938) - Butch, Henchman
 * The Man in the Iron Mask (1939) - Captain of Fouquet's Guards
 * The Taming of the West (1939) - Turkey (uncredited)
 * Hi-Yo Silver (1940)
 * Arabian Nights (1942) – Majordomo (uncredited)
 * Wild Horse Rustlers (1943) - Smoky Moore / Hans Beckmann
 * Law of the Saddle (1943) - Steve Kinney
 * Rustlers' Hideout (1944) - Hammond
 * Terror Trail (1946) - Duke Catlett (uncredited)
 * Behind Prison Walls (1946)
 * Gunning for Vengeance (1946) - Jim Clayburn (uncredited)
 * The Vigilantes Return (1947) - Messenger
 * Cattle Queen (1951) - Marshal Houston
 * The Hawk of Wild River (1952) - George, Storekeeper (uncredited)
 * Thunder Over the Plains (1953) (with Randolph Scott and Phyllis Kirk) - Mike Faraday
 * Border River (1954) (with Joel McCrea and Yvonne De Carlo) - Anderson
 * Alfred Hitchcock Presents (1955) (Season 1 Episode 7: "Breakdown") - Sheriff
 * Quantrill's Raiders (1958) - Sheriff Alden

title: Lane Chandler


text:
User:DavidH/talk2

=MOVED from DavidH Talk page 7/14/2005:=

Kudos to DavidH!!!
Kudos to DavidH for cleaning up the article! A massive task that landed on its feet! Paleorthid 7 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)

[retrieved from Soil talk page]

The "only" ones(?)
Thanks for your encouragement on editing the misuse of only. Sometimes I have thought I was the only one doing it. We only want to do what's correct! (The latter was a little humor, before you jump on me.) :-) DanMS 3 July 2005 02:01 (UTC)

re:stub movement
No problem, if you are ever interested the list of current stubs can be found Here and the different categories that you can sort stubs into can be found Here. I hope you enjoy being a part of wikipedia and if you have any questions please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page or just ask one of the more experienced users here and I'm sure they'd be glad to help, dont' worry we don't bite. Welcome again. Jtkiefer July 3, 2005 07:23 (UTC)

Brazilian Pepper
Hi David - thanks for the note; I think I can see what you mean, though a scan through google images shows it to be quite variable. . . if the plants pictured are correctly labelled! Unfortunately, it isn't a species I'm familiar with (I know S. molle rather better). If it is any help, the photo on wiki is from Florida (USGS pic) in the first place - so if it isn't S. terebinthifolius, then there's more than one species at large in Florida (quite possible, of course; there's about 25-30 species in the genus, most of them South American). I'll take another look tomorrow. - MPF 5 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Daily Illini entry
Hi David,

Thanks for your comments about the DI entry. I was bored at work yesterday and thought I'd just spruce up the entry a little bit. You're probably right though, the Middle East entry probably is not too relevant. I just thought there was a lot of information about it online and that curious readers might want to know that it's a contentious issue on campus, among other incidents. There are enough instances where I thought it should go in the canon. I was hoping other entries about other controversies or things the paper did well would be added to balance it out in the future. As for the DI book entry, I didn't put it in there as an advertisement. I don't even have any involvement in it. I just thought it would be an interesting tidbit for readers. Take care!

-W

Start
Welcome!

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

Thanks for your edits. One problem you may wish to look out for is changing the article you link to when you adjust wording. For example, at New Orleans Mardi Gras you made many good edits, but at the same time you changed the relevent link to the American Civil War to "Civil War" -- try clicking on that latter link and see why that's not the most specifically relevent article in context. Videotape was also a more relevent link than "videos" (a redirect to video; articles are generally at the singular with a redirect to the plural). A link to Endymion does not go to the same article as one to Krewe of Endymion. Anyway, I hope you take the "constructive" part of this "constructive criticism" as the key point; there's always a learning curve for new users. Take a look at some of the links above, and I think you'll do great as a Wikipedian! Cheers, -- Infrogmation June 29, 2005 21:58 (UTC)

 * Hi. I responded to your questions on my talk page. Some users do use email to communicate. Personally, unless it is something that should be private, I prefer the talk pages as I look at them when I'm in Wikipedia mode, whereas I might get emails when I'm busy with other things. You use whatever you're comfortable with. I'm sure that at first look much of Wikipedia's policies and practices look needlessly abtuse, but with a bit of time I think you'll find that at least a good deal of it arose from due consideration and experience. Of course your feedback is welcome. Cheers, -- Infrogmation June 30, 2005 01:04 (UTC)

title: User:DavidH/talk2


text:
Talk:West Vancouver Secondary School

VfD results
This article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. For details, please see Votes for deletion/West Vancouver Secondary School,. -- BD2412 talk 02:48, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:West Vancouver Secondary School


text: User talk:68.42.77.12

title: User talk:68.42.77.12


text:
Patlabor: The New Files

Patlabor: The New Files, known in Japan as Mobile Police Patlabor 2 (機動警察パトレイバー2), is a Japanese original video animation series based on the Patlabor anime franchise. These episodes take place at several points between episodes of Patlabor: The TV Series and after the latter's final episode. The OVA episodes also feature the conclusion of the Griffon storyarc.

Plot
Four episodes of The New Files series serve as the finale for the Griffin arc of the television series. The rest of the series mainly consists of side stories that take place during or after the TV show.

Episodes
The episodes were released as OVAs alongside the TV series on Laserdisc and VHS from Bandai Visual from November 22, 1990 to June 6, 1992. They were later released on DVD on August 25, 2000, and on Blu-ray on September 24, 2010. Central Park Media licensed the New Files series and released them on subtitled VHS under the U.S. Manga Corps label. They later released one DVD volume with English audio before releasing a box set containing all 16 episodes. Only four episodes of the series were dubbed; the rest were subtitled only. Maiden Japan has relicensed the OVA series, and released the series on Blu-ray and DVD on February 17, 2015. All of the episodes were included in the Patlabor the Mobile Police - Complete Collection boxset also released by Maiden Japan on 6 January 2019.

title: Patlabor: The New Files


text:
Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest is an area of land in the towns of Woodstock, Ellsworth and Thornton in the White Mountains of New Hampshire that functions as an outdoor laboratory for ecological studies. It was initially established in 1955 by the United States Forest Service for the study of the relationship between forest cover and water quality and supply.

Forest land management
In 1955 the first tract was dedicated in the Hubbard Brook watershed, just west of the village of West Thornton, New Hampshire. The first stream in the forest was fitted with monitoring devices in 1956. Subsequently, seven additional headwater streams and their associated watersheds were delimited for study. Each such zone functions essentially as a closed environmental system. Since efflux of water, minerals, and water-bound organisms leaving each watershed (and leaving the entire forest as well) can be monitored, the effects of changes experimentally introduced into the system can be measured.

Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study
For the first five or six years after its establishment the HBEF was used for research in forestry but soon its value for study of the forest ecosystem was recognized and it attracted the interest of researchers from major universities. The work at Hubbard Brook has led researchers there and elsewhere to try to model or better understand the complex forest ecosystem, including its interaction with humans. HBEF research teams have succeeded in elucidating a number of vexing environmental problems, most notably the harmful effects of acid rain. The forest preservation the research promotes helps to protect watershed chemistry, ambient humidity, seasonal temperature fluctuations, and wildlife habitats.

History

The idea for using the small watershed approach being used at Hubbard Brook for studies of elemental budgets and cycles was born with Professor F. Herbert Bormann of Dartmouth College, who began taking his botany classes for field trips to this area of the White Mountain National Forest in the early 1950s, and Forest Service scientist Robert Pierce. Bormann proposed to Pierce that the area set aside by the Forest Service for watershed studies be used for closed-system ecological studies.

In 1960, soon after the establishment of HBEF, ecologist Gene Likens and geologist Noye Johnson, both from Dartmouth, joined the research team. In 1963, the group received a $60,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study "Hydrological-Mineral Cycle Interaction in a Small Watershed". This study evolved into the series of longitudinal studies now referred to as the "Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study", or HBES. The early ecosystem monitoring was aimed at studying the effects of forest management practices on water flow and quality. These data have been helpful as baselines for the increasingly sophisticated areas of ongoing research in the forest. HBES has spawned over 2000 scientific papers, perhaps most important a 1968 study that documented the widespread presence of "acid rain". HBRF was designated as a Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) site in 1988 and has some of the longest on-going ecological datasets.

Currently the study comprises researchers from multiple universities, including Dartmouth College, Yale University, Cornell University, Syracuse University, SUNY ESF, the University of New Hampshire, Keene State College and the University of Vermont. The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation provides housing for research assistants at nearby Pleasant View Farm and recently completed the purchase of cottages for visiting and resident scientists around Mirror Lake, the point at which Hubbard Brook exits the experimental forest.

Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest is the most recently added research forest under USFS jurisdiction for hydrologic studies in the eastern and southern United States.

Hubbard Brook ecosystem

Located in the White Mountain National Forest in central New Hampshire, within the town of Woodstock, the 31 km² bowl-shaped forested valley has hilly terrain, ranging from 222 to 1015 m in altitude. The forest comprises nine individual watersheds, each of which drains into Hubbard Brook which flows eastward into the Pemigewasset River near West Thornton. The outlet from Mirror Lake, a much-studied pond and recreation site, flows south into Hubbard Brook just before the brook passes under Interstate 93.

Forest
The forest is mostly a "second-growth" mix of northern hardwoods (80 to 90%) and red spruce-balsam fir (10 to 20%). Beech, yellow birch, and sugar maple experience their greatest importance at 570 m, 570 to 650 m, and 720 m, respectively, with paper birch, fir, and spruce at 720m to treeline (>775 m). Mountain maple, striped maple, and mountain ash characterize the understory at various elevations, with mountain maple being ubiquitous. Five of the seven canopy species are valued for various reasons. Harsh winter conditions do not allow for rapid recovery, unlike more humid climates that recover net primary productivity within years, the northeastern version needs decades and in the case of the forest floor possibly centuries to recover. The forest was partly cleared for agriculture starting in the late 18th century and was also logged. By 1920 over 200 million board feet (470,000 m3) of timber had been harvested from the valley.

Soils
Soil is predominantly well-drained spodosol derived from glacial till, with sandy loam textures, combining to produce an evident, but narrow E horizon. The forest floor is characterized by the complete suite of taxonomic subhorizons, has been classified as mor type humus, with mull occurring beneath maple stands at lower elevations (600 m). It is acidic (pH about 4.5 or less) and relatively infertile for agricultural purposes. Aluminum and iron are preferentially leached from the upper soil horizons to an underlying layer(s) that is characteristic of the soil order. Hence, silica is retained and at times mixes with the forest floor. Soil depths are highly variable, with shallow strands of organic matter comprising the entire profile at higher elevations (folist) or underlain by sandy unsorted material (podzol).

Climate
Annual precipitation averages about 1400 mm, with one-third to one-quarter as snow. January averages about -9 °C and the average July temperature is 18 °C. The forest averages 145 frost-free days per year.

Areas of research

 * 1) Hydrology, including ecosystem water flow, snowfall analysis, and long-term ice-in/ice-out measurements
 * 2) Environmental factors encouraging or restricting tree growth, and effects of deforestation on mineral flux
 * 3) Effects of environmental changes on bird behavior and insect population, especially regarding reproductive capacity
 * 4) Effects of acid rain and resultant soil mineral changes on micro-environments of plant root systems
 * 5) Cycling of Nitrogen, Sulfur, Phosphorus, Mercury, Calcium, and Carbon, and effects of pollution on flux of these and other minerals

Hubbard Brook Research Foundation
The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation supports the work of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study, which is conducted at the USDA Forest Service's Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire's White Mountain National Forest. HBRF supports research by maintaining facilities for housing, meetings, and laboratory work. The Foundation also helps transmit the findings of the Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study to policymakers, opinion leaders, and other members of the public through its Science Links program, which translates science from peer-reviewed scientific articles and conducts a variety of education and outreach activities.

Annual symposium
Each summer, Hubbard Brook scientists and experts from afar gather at the base station for a 2-day colloquium to present and discuss ongoing research. Approximately 150 scientists and students attend the program, which features eighty-odd 10-minute presentations in which participants openly criticize and contribute new ideas to each presenter's findings.

title: Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest


text: User talk:212.137.71.44

title: User talk:212.137.71.44