text:
Talk:Remote work

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ANTTONNY.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Telecommuting → Working from home – "Telecommuting" has quickly become a dated term. Google search trends for the last five years are pretty clear that "telecommuting" is not the common name for what's being described here, varying forms of the word "telecommuting" lose out in large to massive margins to "work from home" and even "remote work." The search engine also shows ~4.9 million hits for "telecommuting" vs. ~165 million for "work from home."

For reliable sources, Google News shows ~104,000 results for telecommuting vs. ~33.3 million for "work from home." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412  T 20:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose for now, as I think this move would seek to change the area of focus of the article. People have "worked from home" for centuries, but this topic is largely limited to recent decades by focusing on aspects of working from home accomplished means of modern technology (telephone, internet, personal computers). I don't see much focus within the article at present which indicates coverage of working from home prior to these technologies. For example, an architect that works on drawings in their home study would be "working from home" in 1930 but "telecommuting" today. Google search engine WP:HITS are highly-susceptible to several biases.  For example, many of those hits could be about the topic of home-based business rather than telecommuting. Here is a Google ngrams search that might be more reliable. It shows that "work* at home" has a long history of use, but "telecommut*" and "work* from home" are recent, with telecommuting being used more. -- Netoholic @ 13:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I explored that same ngrams link before proposing this, but as the data ends in 2011 (nine years ago, and there are questionably steep decreases in every term leading up to that year), I took those results with a major grain of salt. Any ambiguity in the title could very easily be resolved with a hatnote (e.g. "this article is about the modern practice of using technology to work for an organization outside an established office" or similar, I'm sure that could be simplified more) or a sentence in the lead. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Every term would show those "steep decreases" because the data set tapers off and then ends in 2012 (for example, cats vs dogs. It doesn't represent a real drop in usage. Instead, just compare the level of the recent peaks for relative usage. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't represent a real drop. ;-) I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer in my message. What I meant is that I saw and discounted the ngram prior to creating this request because it's at best nine years old—and even that data isn't reliable for our purposes here, which is looking at the common name of a thing in 2020, not 2004-ish. I hope that doesn't come off too strong. I mean no malice! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does anyone actually call it telecommuting? We still invariably just call it "working from home" in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In sort of everyday conversation, that could be. But what do you call the people who are working from home? In that case, "telecommuters" is still the most common term as there really is no other word for them. The terminology could be in flux, but "telecommuting" is still valuable as a way to distinguish the very similar phrases "work from home" (telecommuting) and "work at home" (as in the case of home-based business). -- Netoholic @ 14:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Homeworkers"! I believe that is the formal term in the UK as well as the common one. But is that relevant to the article title anyway? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Remote work" is another possibility. The fact is that a tiny number of people use the term "telecommuting" to describe this work, and per WP:COMMONNAME we should adapt to modern usage. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems regional, as that term here would be confused with homework (ie student assignments done at home), so "homeworkers" to mean doing jobs at home hasn't caught on. -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We use the term in the UK too but we would never refer to students doing homework as homeworkers or as working from home. We'd just say they were doing their homework! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The topics seem different. As noted by Netaholic, people have been working from home for a lot longer than they have been telecommuting. Telecommuting implies the use of telecommunication as a substitute for commuting to an institutional setting, rather than just any home-based work. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE, as noted people can work from home without telecommuting. In any case, "work from home" is a verb and is a redirect that already targets here. 94.21.219.87 (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the proposal to "working from home," thank you! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:25, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because telecommuting and working from home aren’t necessarily the same thing. Some people work remotely but not from home—they work from a remote office or at a telecommute center or similar. While I work from home, if I were to work out of an office near where I live, I would still be telecommuting because my actual office is located about 250 miles away. (I say "telecommute," but the higher-ups at my workplace say "telework." The latter term is especially preferred by the US government.) At my previous job, I worked in downtown Washington DC but was using electronic means to work on some material located halfway around the world, so you could certainly say I was telecommuting or teleworking even though I definitely wasn’t working from home. 1995hoo (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose They are not necessarily the same thing.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exploring a move
Something has changed. Maybe there should be a new article, or maybe this one should be renamed.

"Telecommuting" is a term from when the Internet was new or maybe earlier. Now it is common for everyone to have phone and Internet access. Everyone "telecommutes" to other locations continuously through the Internet by having voice and video chats, sharing files, and every other kind of electronic communication.

We have no particular Wikipedia article for "working from home", which is a different concept. With COVID-19 workplace behavior changed somehow. I am not sure what sources call it, but something globally is different and we need a place on wiki to describe that.

Any move or new article development should address the concerns above, which are good thoughts.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to remote work with no prejudice against a new request. Hoo boy, this is a classic WP:NOGOODOPTIONS close. Almost everyone disregards the title we have as not being common. It is correctly pointed out that the proposed title (which of course should be Working from home, not Working From Home) is technically a rescoping, since not all telecommuting is from home necessarily. Of course, requested moves involve rescoping all the time (one editor commented that remote work also implies a rescope, since it technically includes people running mail order services), and it seems like the consensus didn't really form (which makes sense because the nomination wasn't about the rescope at all). So the solution to me is to not rescope yet, since no consensus developed to do so. However, a consensus surely did develop that the current title is bad. No consensus EXCEPT that there IS a consensus to move it... somewhere. Classic NOGOODOPTIONS.

Since WFH requires a larger rescope, I rejected that title. That left remote work and remote working, both logical possibilities. I pretty arbitrarily chose the former, as both were well attested in the discussion and nobody really debated whether to use the gerund form or not. Again, the decision between remote work and remote working should NOT be considered "decided" now. If anyone wants to file a new request, please do. Red  Slash  22:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Telecommuting → Working From Home – Working From Home or WFH is way more WP:COMMONNAME compared to Telecommuting. Around 20 times more number of results in google search. WFH has increased a lot since the Covid outbreak, so things have changed in the last 1 year compared to previous move request. Crashed greek (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE  15:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)  — Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as it seems there are so many other variants listed in the lead alone that it isn't really clear to be if "working from home" should be the primary one. Why not "remote working" for instance, which covers WFH and other scenerios where someone is working away from the office, but not necessarily "at home". The article is not specifically about home working, but working away from an office (which includes, but not solely, at home). I am not saying that I particularly like the current article title though, I just don't think "working from home" covers the subject matter on the whole any better. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remote working sounds like a good idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Remote working" is not WP:COMMMONNAME for this topic. Crashed greek (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article specifically focuses upon working away from one's regular workplace in the age of the Internet. It is not about people who have been running their mail order, accounting, child care or other businesses from home during the 20th century or about people who established basement workshops or handyman enterprises in their homes. It is particularly relevant in the Age of Covid and specifically focused upon work that can only be done with the technology of the past decade or less, such as Zoom, Skype, Microsoft Teams, etc. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Working from home (lower case). Far more common term than telecommuting. And already redirects here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Roman Spinner. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Move to remote work. More common in google scholar than telecommuting: . Much more common in the news, 1.2 million vs 81k Vpab15 (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Remote working runs a close second, but it's moot I think. I am self-employed and work for clients from my home office. Is that remote working? (Hint: does the taxwoman apply business rates to all or part of your property?) 85.67.32.244 (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Support moving to Working from home (f and h are lowercase) per WP:COMMONNAME. Crossover1370  (talk | contribs) 05:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to working from home per User:Crossover1370. The proposed title Working From Home uses the wrong capitalisation. J I P  | Talk 12:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Computing has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Telecommunications has been notified of this discussion. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 02:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Support move to "Remote work" instead Remote work seems like the far more common term and is less ambiguous to individuals that might not be familiar with the expression "Work from home" (which could be things other than this article).DocFreeman24 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Working from home as first choice, simply because it's more commonly used than remote working, but I could also support that if there's more consensus. Both are way better than the present title "telecommuting" though, which frankly I wouldn't even know meant the same thing at all so it fails WP:RECOGNIZE. — Amakuru (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Telecommuting, as a term, is strong but starting to fall out of favor (see ngram). Work from home and working from home are a bit ambiguous as they can also describe self-employed endeavors. This area is in flux and it's hard to say where it will land. Let's leave this as it is for a while and see where things go. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: I have elected to relist this discussion for a second time (rather than closing with no consensus), given there has been some recent discussion and I feel that there has not been sufficient consensus for any option to close at this time. I note that the discussion can be closed at any time following a relist should the closer feel that sufficient consensus has formed. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although there is overlap, telecommuting and working from home are two different concepts. As the article notes, telecommuting involves working from a remote worksite, often but certainly not always from home. On the flip side, working from home may include many self-employed professionals or small business owners who do no type of commuting, physical or virtual, to any other location. Station1 (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move with preference to Remote work(with ing or without, that doesn't bother me) but still accepting Work from home I don't believe any person actually uses "telecommuting" anymore, during the age of COVID. In response to the ngrams, they only date back to 2018, which means it completely misses out on COVID-era, which has made this topic much more different then before. I agree with the arguments against moving to Work from home, as it's too broad, but I still believe that Work from home is still at least understood better than telecommuting. The fact is the title is not good and regardless of what the future title should be it shouldn't be Telecommuting. Thanks, SixulaTalk 01:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment by proposer: Move to Remote Working As the proposer of the move, I am ok with either Working from home or Remote Working or without the ing suffix for either. Both Remote work and Work from home are WP:COMMONNAMEs. Crashed greek (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, it isn't really appropriate to !vote in a discussion you're a nominator of - this should really be a comment. Secondly, when I suggested "Remote working" (which by virtue could include variations like "Remote work"), you said it wasn't a WP:COMMONNAME, yet now it is? Even if RW(ing) gets consensus, the mover would need to know which variation is preferred, which doesn't seem clear at the moment. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed my comment from support to comment now. Crashed greek (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related article
A new article was called WFH for American Office-Based employees during the COVID-19 Pandemic. I thought editors here may be interested to know about it. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Subsections
OMG do we really need 29 subsections of benefits of drawbacks, many of which are just a couple of sentences long? This is horribly organized, and even the titles of these creep towards original research. I suggest we create a section of Benefits, and then a difference section of Drawbacks and then try to cluster more intelligently within each. -- Zim Zala Bim talk 20:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of the disorganization was caused by a since-banned editor named Ward330 who made several unexplained major edits on November 29 and January 29-31. I've restore some of the old section headings. Jade Ten (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Under "Potential Drawbacks and Concerns" there's a section titled "Negative aspects of remote work". Just to be clear, it's a real shock to read that negative aspects might be a potential drawback or concern(!) Why is it there, this redundancy? 92.40.197.220 (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue
— Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Project Team Management
— Assignment last updated by JonKush (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ruizhouruizhou (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CMN2160A
— Assignment last updated by Nessie111 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ys5220 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Distributed workforce into Remote work
Distributed workforce seems like remote work from a more corporate perspective. The text sort of reads like an MBA's class project but maybe there's something useful to move over. The list of sources at the end seems potentially useful. Apocheir (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that this has been uncontested for more than 6 months, ✅ Klbrain (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ym2419 (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance
Saw an interesting piece in Nature by Bloom, N., Han, R. & Liang, J. Hybrid working from home improves retention without damaging performance. Nature (2024). https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07500-2

Their conclusion is that remote work does not make performance better or worse. It leaves leave performance unchanged. What hybrid working does do is reduce attrition, because remote work is seen as a perk with reduced commuting and easier child-care. Derek J Moore (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Remote work


text:
User talk:Kilgannon

Hi. I'm not sure if the image you are trying to insert into Newbie is of you or someone that you know but you need to stop making attempts to add it to the article. It is considered vandalism and can get you blocked from editing. Please do any tests in the sandbox. - Tεx  τ  urε  17:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Kilgannon


text:
Talk:Second Battle of the Stronghold

The killing of Major General Edward Canby occured during a war, the peace delegation was unsuccessful and no formal cease fire was enacted, this was not a murder it was an assassination on a high ranking officer and allies of an enemy power (during war time in a war zone).

title: Talk:Second Battle of the Stronghold


text: User talk:81.6.250.44

title: User talk:81.6.250.44


text:
Nun (disambiguation)

A nun is a member of a religious community of women.

Nun, Nuns or NUN may also refer to:

 * Nun (band), an Australian music group
 * Nun (biblical figure)
 * Nun (letter), in many Semitic alphabets
 * Nun languages, a group of Eastern Grassfields languages
 * Nun Mountain, a summit in Alaska
 * Nun pigeon
 * Nun River, Nigeria
 * Nun, another term for the Egyptian god Nu
 * Nun, a mountain of the Nun Kun massif in Kashmir, India
 * Nun, the fish Oxynoemacheilus galilaeus
 * NUN, IATA code for Saufley Field airport, Pensacola, Florida, U.S.
 * NUN, National Rail station code for Nuneaton railway station, UK
 * Nun, a Latin abbreviation for the nundinae market days

title: Nun (disambiguation)


text: User talk:24.34.164.83

title: User talk:24.34.164.83


text:
Talk:Chettinad

Example of inappropriate tone: "Many a chettinad cook has melted the palates of international clientele". There are also numerous misplaced commas and other minor grammatical problems. Good article overall though. –DeweyQ 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

copy-editing, sentence structure
Small changes. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Chettinad. 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/20060407055557/http://www.cecri.res.in:80/ to http://www.cecri.res.in/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060407055557/http://www.cecri.res.in:80/ to http://www.cecri.res.in/

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) 15:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chettinad


text:
Milan Blažeković

Milan Blažeković (6 July 1940 – 30 May 2019) was a Croatian animator.

Blažeković began his career at the Zagreb Film studio with "mini" short films such as The Fish, Ikarus, Vergl and Gorilla Dance (1968), The Man Who Had to Sing (October 1971) and Man: The Polluter (August 8, 1973), the latter for the National Film Board of Canada. In later years, he directed three children's films with the animation unit of Croatia Film: The Elm-Chanted Forest (June 19, 1986), The Magician's Hat (January 1, 1990) and Lapitch the Little Shoemaker (October 23, 1997).

By around 2000, Blažeković ended his partnership with Croatia Film, and returned to Zagreb Film to work on a fourth animated feature, Tales of Long Ago (Priče iz davnine), which was initially planned for a Christmas 2003 release.

Blažeković was involved in two 2011 projects: one of which was The Hedgehog's House (Ježeva kućica), and an adaptation of Veselin Gatalo's Bosnian book, Ja sam pas… i zovem se Salvatore.

title: Milan Blažeković


text:
Talk:Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction

Last Paragraph Deleted
I removed the last paragraph, which cited a blatantly POV website as authoratative. Anyone have other information? 128.59.171.63 17:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Sharing of Nuclear Weapons and the NPT.
Ref sharing arrangements for weapons and the NPT. Although some people believe sincerely that this violates the NPT in spirit or in fact, the sharing arrangements with Nato allies pre-dates the NPT, and so the lawyers argue that legally the arrangements do not violate the Treaty. Similar considerations apply to the exchange of fissile material, exchange of design data etc by the U.K. and the U.S. But these issues are so overburdened with political posturing that everyone feels free to adopt any viewpoint ragardless of the facts. I try always to remember that Wiki is an encyclopaedia, not a site for political polemic. If I have an occassional lapse feel free to slap my hands.

As a sideline, what perhaps does violate the NPT is the assistance secretly given by the U.S. to France in the related areas of warhead hardening, penetrability, and possibly access to underground test data on French warhead survivability when exposed to detonations at the Nevada Test Site. France is different from the other European allies in that it is only a notional NATO ally and has never been assigned U.S. weapons, and assistance given circa 1973 certainly post-dates the NPT. Not surprisingly there is little published material, but a very reliable source states that assistance was given in these areas:
 * Weapon safety systems
 * Missile guidance systems
 * Supply of specialist X-Ray machines for French weapons labs and essential for warhead hardening design studies.
 * Licencing for French production and supply of samples of 3DPQ (3-Dimensional Phenolic Quartz) a fabric material essential for manufacture of hardened re-entry vehicles.
 * The source is the U.K. Ministry of Defence archive declassified Jan 2006, filed at DEFE 19/180/16/7. Brian.Burnell 12:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Re the sideline: the NPT does not prevent a NWS (e.g U.S.) helping another NWS (e.g France/UK), which you could see as an example of the uneven-handidness of the NPT. Article 1 says "Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes ... not in any way to assist ... any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture ...". But a NWS can't help the Netherlands in this or other ways. Rwendland 01:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm not so sure about that. There are declassified files in the UK archives that relate to the help that France sought from the UK and Australia to airlift fissionable supplies to their Pacific test sites. As I remember from these files, France had asked for landing rights at UK military airfilds in the Middle East and Indian Ocean, and Darwin, Australia. Their tests would be more difficult to stage without these landing rights. As I remember, Australia asked the Brits for their view of the legality of granting access. The Brits wanted to help the French but believed that if they did they would be in breach. That was the advice given to the UK govt and Ozzies by the UK's legal advisors. Brian.Burnell 17:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Article 1 distinguishes between the weapons themselves "not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons" (not to any state), and assistance "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State" (not to non-NWS). I guess in the early days they may have worried about the weapons themselves in transit on a UK airfield being a "transfer".  Not that it has worried the UK with respect to U.S. weapons later; U.S. weapons were stored in the U.K. and then moved onto other NATO counties like the Netherlands so UK acted as a transit store for U.S. nuclear weapons. Rwendland 20:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sale of WMDs by Dutch businessmen
I find this paragraph completely unrelated to this article. A person with the dutch nationality apparently provided chemicals. This has nothing to do with the Netherlands. Second, the title is wrong since it implies businessmen, but only one man has been accused (and convicted). I will delete this paragraph. EdBever (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bulleted list item

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Netherlands and weapons of mass destruction. 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/20090105200406/http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm to http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Volkel
This article suggests that the Netherlands does not have nuclear weapons, while at the article about the air base Volkel, it says that nuclear weapons are stored there. Which one is correct? PPP (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Job security

Job security

 * Nominated on 17:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC); needs 10 votes by August 2.

Important concept involving jobs. Considering the recession that started after the dot com boom, this would be an important topic to people in computer fields. Furtherman, a history of job securtiy can date back ot pre World War II where the Great Depression left many jobless on the streets. Therefore, because of the broadness that could be done with this topic, I nominated it for COTW.

Support: Comments:
 * 1) ZeWrestler 17:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Howabout1 Talk to me! 17:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Alarm 21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) EatAlbertaBeef 17:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Jacoplane 11:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) --Zxcvbnm 18:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is important that this is not treated mainly as the opposite of unemployment. Equally important is that it is not written from a specific U.S. perspective. However, there is great potential for the article. For example, contributors from different parts of the world can compare how layoffs are regulated by legislation and collective agreements. / Alarm 21:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point that I did not think about with this article. I just heard on CNN that Egypt has a high unemployment rate of 25%.  I wounder what the job security is like there.  Also, I know in France, if you have to fire someone, you actually have to take them to court inorder to fire them.  I'll deffinetly make an adjustment on the article to anticipate for other nations besides the U.S. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 12:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


text:
Category:Milesian colonies

Colonies in antiquity founded by Milesians.

title: Category:Milesian colonies


text:
Talk:Job security

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU23 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Ys5220 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Job security


text:
User:Aaron Mendelson

Who? My name is. What? My name is. Who? My name is. Chic-a-chic-a Aaron Mendelson.

Who said that?

title: User:Aaron Mendelson


text:
User talk:Aaron Mendelson

I rock!

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aaron Mendelson


text:
Hard, Hard Times

"Hard, Hard Times" is a traditional Newfoundland folk song/ballad, adapted from an earlier English song, "Rigs of the Times" by William James Emberley. The song has been sung and recorded by a number of Newfoundland musicians.

History
William James Emberley (June 26, 1876 – June 10, 1937) was a Newfoundland and Labrador fisherman who grew up in Bay de Verde, Newfoundland (now Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada), the son of Joseph and Jane (Russell).

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, because of the collapse of the international economy, fishermen, including Emberley, were unable to sell their fish; many were reduced to living on the government dole, which was six cents a day. In 1936, Emberly adapted the English song, "Rigs of the Times", to reflect the fishermen's plight. He called it "Hard, Hard Times".

Emberley's verses reflect a style commonly found in the 18th-century English broadside which made fun of various occupations and made light of difficult circumstances. The song soon became part of the Newfoundland historical tradition. The Emberley version was recorded by Dick Nolan, and was published in Edith Fowke's The Penguin Book of Canadian Folk Songs (Harmondsworth, England, 1973).

As "Hard, Hard Times" or "Rigs of the Times", the song has also been recorded by Shirley Collins, Martin Carthy, Maddy Prior and others. Steeleye Span recorded a related song from England after the Napoleonic Wars: "Hard Times of Old England".

Lyrics
Come all you good people I'll sing you a song, About the poor people, how they get along; They'll start in the Spring, finish up in the Fall, And when it's all over they got nothin' at all. And it's hard hard times.

Go out in the mornin', go on if it's still, It's over the side you'll hear the line knell; For out goes the jigger and freezes the cold, And as for the startings all gone in the hole. And it's hard hard times.

The fine side of fishing we'll have by and by, The fine side of fishing we'll have a good buy; Seven dollars for large and six-fifty for small, Take out your West Indie, you've nothing at all. And it's hard hard times.

When you got some spearin' they're hung out to dry, It'll take all your time to brush off the flies; To keep off the flies it is more than you'll do, Then out comes the sun and she all splits in two. And it's hard hard times.

Then next comes the carpenter to build you a house, He'll build her so snug you'll scarce find a mouse; With holes in the roof and the rain it will pour, The chimney will smoke and it's open the door. And it's hard hard times.

Then next comes the doctor the worst one of all, Saying what is the matter with you all this Fall; Says he will cure you of all your disease, When the money he's got you can die if you please. And it's hard hard times.

The best thing to do is to work with a will, For when it's all finished you're hauled on the hill; You're hauled on the hill and put down in the cold, And when it's all finished you're still in the hole. And it's hard hard times.

title: Hard, Hard Times


text:
Talk:Bail bond

Perhaps this article would be better merged with Bail? Mr Curly 14:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

What would be the best way to find out how many bonds and what the average bond issued is in a particular juridiction.

title: Talk:Bail bond


text:
Talk:Kingdom of Soissons

Comments
I believe the references to the Vandals in this article are in error; so far as I know, the Vandals never campaigned in Gaul except to raid the southern coastal towns. Certainly, Alaric II, referred to as a "Vandal king" here, was actually a king of the Visigoths, and I would say that is also who they fought in the 463 battle as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.152.9.106 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Last Roman enclave within Gaul or simply all of former Roman empire?
I am having a trouble attempting to answer the above question I had in mind. The articles including this and elsewhere mentions Domain of Soissons as being the last Roman enclave within Roman Gaul but it was never made clear if this is also the last Roman enclave of all within former Roman Empire. Is there any other Roman enclaves like this beyond Gaul at that point in the history? Just need to clear that up. Thanks. --Legion 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the last within the territory of the Western Empire, unless your definition includes the Romano-British or that Odoacer was governing Italy for Zeno. Kuralyov 00:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Define Roman? There was a Byzantine enclave in Spain in the 6th century and of course in Italy until the late 11th. Sardinia and Corsica were Byzantine until at least the 8th century. Srnec 04:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But those weren't established until the campaigns of Belisarius and Narses, a century after the overthrow of the Western empire. Kuralyov 15:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But the question concerned the term "Roman" and the Empire was always a unity governed in halves, never two distinct empires. The "fall of the Western Roman Empire" really only refers to the theoretical reunion of the two halves and the rule by barbarians of whatever in the West remained in allegiance to the emperor. Rome never ceased to acknowledge itself as part of the Roman Empire. Not in 476 or at any other date that I am aware (before the modern age). Belisarius and Narses were Romans and the territory they conquered was considered to be part of the Empire by right. They were Roman enclaves. Srnec 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Dalmatia also was under Roman control. Why do you say that Soissons was the last Roman enclave? There were about 10 legions in the western part of the empire by 480, and none of them declared secession. By the way, what legions were under command of Syagrius?--Dojarca (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 05 September 2013

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Domain of Soissons → Kingdom of Soissons – It's what more sources use. "Domain" is very rare. An alternative, since the proposed title could refer to a later Merovingian creation, is Roman kingdom of Soissons, which is also in use. --Relisted. --  tariq abjotu  03:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

We aren't using bibliometry to make decisions for us, but it may be relevant that I find 193,000 Google results for "Domain of Soissons" and 103,000 for "Kingdom of Soissons", which would also include the Merovingian creation. "Roman Kingdom of Soissons" brings up 26,000. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose while later and non-Roman sources do refer to it as a kingdom, there is a persistent scholarly doubt that it would have been called a kingdom at the time, at least if Syagrius shared the old Roman rejection of the name of "king". "Domain" is a modern term, generally used in modern scholarship, it explicitly avoids that controversy and may therefore be (marginally) better than either "Kingdom" or "Roman Kingdom". Calling it the "Kingdom of Soissons" would also cause (slight) potential confusion with the Merovingian version, which definitely was a kingdom.
 * Try Google Book and Scholar searches and exclude results derived from Wikipedia. You will see that the term "domain" is very rare, while "(Roman) kingdom" is quite common. We should call it what our most reliable sources call it. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Comment "Domain" is no doubt unsatisfying, but "kingdom" may be even more more problematic; Aegidius was never king but magister militum, and despite Gregory's claim it seems unlikely Syagrius was really Rex Romanorum. One of the most detailed books on the topic in English, Late Roman Warlords, does use the term "kingdom", but with scare quotes, and in a similar fashion A Companion to Late Antiquity says "kingdom or personal fiefdom". The problem with "king" and "kingdom" seems all too often to come in scare quotes, and often it's just a quote of Gregory.Aldux (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Gregory and the Liber historiae Francorum both call Aegidius "king". Penny MacGeorge's essay "Syagrius and the Kingdom of Soissons" in Late Roman Warlords is unabashed in using the term "kingdom" to describe Syagrius' realm. It is Edward James who wants to restrict it and whom she cites using scare quotes around the term. Here is James's paper, in which it is clear that the dominant term for Syagrius' region is "kingdom" (royaume), although James wants to change this. "Domain" is an unfortunate Wikipedian neologism. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I was simply observing that even the most favourable sources used caution (if you look at p. 111 "Roman kingdom" does appear in scare quotes; that said, after having taken the book in hand I've got to give you it's even more favourable than I remembered). As for Aegidius, remember we are spoken of sources quite far from the events (and at most it has been quibbled if he could have been king of the Franks, not certainly in a territorial entity). The word "king" (rex) is very charged in Roman tradition, and it is hard to immagine a Roman office-holder, for this the PLRE doesn't even consider it regarding Aegidius (and mentions to refute his Frank kingship).Aldux (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is room to doubt the ascription of royal status to both Syagrius and his realm, but the article needs to be title something—and we can't just make it up. The earliest and most important sources lead us to believe, perhaps mistakenly, that Syagrius was king over a kingdom. That should be our starting point, we can nuance it and critique the primary sources in the article, but we cannot just decide to call it something far more anachronistic (since not one primary sources uses it!). Srnec (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Support as much more common, even if it's possibly somewhat inaccurate. "Kingdom of Soissons" Syagrius returns 794 Google Books hits compared to 58 for "Domain of Soissons", many of which are ripoffs of Wikipedia. As noted above, the chapter on Soissons in Penny MacGeorge's Late Roman Warlords, for instance, is titled "Syagrius and the Kingdom of Soissons". If MacGeorge is comfortable using the conventional term, we don't need to use one that's nearly unheard of outside of Wikipedia. I don't see that any other conventional name is nearly so common, besides just "Soissons".--Cúchullain t/ c 16:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Passing to Weak Support. For the reasons I've exposed I'm not exactly enthusiast with the idea, but I've got to concede that the current title is untenable, since it's pretty correct to call it a "Wikipedian neologism".Aldux (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

How would you feel about the idea of providing a disambiguation page at Kingdom of Soissons, rather than the current redirect, and a short article on the Merovingian Kingdom of Soissons? Even a stub would be useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need a stub on the Merovingian kingdom. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree here, the article Neustria is enough.Aldux (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking we could contact WP:CGR and WP:MA to generate more discussion. Any objections?Aldux (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope. Srnec (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

title: Talk:Kingdom of Soissons


text:
Abrolhos squall

An Abrolhos squall (or Abroholos squall or simply abroholos) is a squall near the Abrolhos Islands off the coast of eastern Brazil that typically occurs from May through August (austral winter). The squall occurs near 18°S latitude, located between Cabo de São Tomé and Cabo Frio.

The southeast trade winds of the tropical South Atlantic Ocean acquire heat and moisture traversing the warm Brazilian current offshore, providing moisture for this rain and thundersquall phenomenon. The Abrolhos squall typically occurs along Antarctic cold fronts penetrating into the tropics.

title: Abrolhos squall