text:
Talk:Civil procedure

Untitled
First paragraph is really about US civil procedure. To show how silly it could get if made POV, I have added England and Wales items. I would welcome some idea as to how to proceed with this. Not everywhere is the US and its wikipedia policy to reflect this. It would be nice if the legal articles weren't so POV, but I can't see how to avoid it without US articles being separated out and a shorter much more general article being put in their stead. Francis Davey 13:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what POV is, but if I understand the problem, I think it could be solved in part by simply adding "In the United States" to the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.127.192 (talk • contribs)

 * POV ("point of view") means that it lacks a global point of view; for example, this article is centered on the American system of civil procedure, while the article on default judgment is exclusively English and Welsh in orientation. It would be nice to compare not only the British and American systems but also the Scottish, Canadian, Australian, and several not based on the English common system. Limiting it to one or two systems with a common heritage adds to the systemic bias that should be reduced as much as possible. 147.70.242.40 00:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where's the res judicata
The concepts of issue preclusion and claim preclusion are big civpro topics. John wesley 19:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Dec 1, 2007 changes
Repeating my comment on the FRCP page: This is probably a larger undertaking than I have time for at present (hurray law school exams) but at some point soon the references to the FRCP should be updated to reflect the new "pain language" revisions that took effect Dec 1, 2007. Nskoch (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

'Civil procedure' accompanied with 'Civil procedure in U.S.' template?!
Screamer says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.228.132 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I will add 'POV' template in regard to Neutral_point_of_view. --89.142.227.110 (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Enforcement of court decisions
I have found that English Wikipedia does not have an article about enforcement of court decisions in general. For example, in Russian law there are such terms as исполнительное производство (civil court decisions enforcement procedure) and обращение взыскания на имущество (recovery against property, i.e. seizure and sale of the debtor's assets). Are there relevant general English legal concepts? Would it make sence to have a general article about them (rules in different countries, etc.)? Olegwiki (talk) 14:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there certainly are rules about enforcement of judgments. I suspect that any general, rather than country specific, article risks being original research. One way to start motivating such a general page would be to get specific pages written and then it would be much easier to write something that adopted a world-wide perspective. Its the kind of thing that would be useful as a series of pages 1/jurisdiction. Why not be bold and write up something for the Russian rules? Put a link here and encourage interested parties to look from this web page at what you've produced - we may have ideas about a useful common structure. Sounds exciting anyway and would be one way of making civil procedure articles less difficult to write by separating a discrete and coherent set of rules elsewhere. Francis Davey (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the English term equivalent to обращение взыскания на имущество (i.e. seizure and sale of the debtor's assets)? Olegwiki (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Probably a writ of execution. --Coolcaesar (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Differences Subsection
This section is really terrible. It seems to contradict itself ("Criminal and civil procedure are the same." vs. "Most countries make a clear distinction between civil and criminal procedure."). It's also generally poorly-written with odd phraseology and sentence structure. I'm certain its wrong in places (American criminal courts award restitution all the time, and I'm pretty sure the prosecution asks the courts to do so routinely).

I think I actually lost knowledge trying to read it. I'd reckon it needs complete revision by an expert.98.17.202.244 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

History
Some history on why civil and criminal cases have different procedure would be great. 76.102.26.97 (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Civil procedure


text: File:Foetus Sink.jpg

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

title: File:Foetus Sink.jpg


text:
Wikipedia:People by year/Reports/No other categories/1/Ar-Au

Ara-Ard

 * Godolphin Arabian (1724-1754)
 * Fathi Arafat (1933-2004), People_stubs,
 * Fathy Arafat (died 2004), People_stubs,
 * Eleanor of Aragon (1358-1382), European_nobility_stubs,
 * Toyozo Arakawa (1894-1985), Japanese_people_stubs,
 * William Aramony (born 1927), People_stubs,
 * Gonzalo Arango (born 1931), People_stubs,
 * Araucaria (compiler) (born 1921)
 * Edward Arber (1836-1912), 1911_Britannica,
 * Arthur John Arberry (1905-1969), People_stubs,
 * Eleonora d'Arborea (1347-1404), People_stubs,
 * Esteban Arce (born 1967)
 * Jorge Arce (born 1979)
 * José Arce (1881-1968), People_stubs,
 * Manuel José Arce (1786-1847), People_stubs,
 * Archambaud VIII of Bourbon (died 1242), French_people_stubs,
 * Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz (1741-1812)
 * Edward Archer (1871-1940), Australia_biography_stubs,
 * William Archer (1856-1924), 1911_Britannica,
 * David Archuleta (born 1982)
 * Charles Noble Arden-Clarke (1898-1962), People_stubs,

Are-Arm

 * Eduardo Jimenez de Arechaga (born 1918), People_stubs,
 * Jean de Ligne, Duke of Aremberg (1528-1568), People_stubs,
 * Leslie Cornelius Arends (1895-1985), American_politician_stubs,
 * Giulio Carlo Argan (1909-1992), Politician_stubs,
 * Ari'i-'Otare Teari'i-maeva-rua II (1871-1932), People_stubs,
 * Olivia Trinidad Arias (born 1948), People_stubs,
 * José Arigó (died 1971), People_stubs,
 * Ravi Arimilli (born 1963), People_stubs,
 * Michael Aris (1940-1999), People_stubs,
 * Bruce Ariss (1911-1994), Artist_stubs,
 * Fred Aristidès (born 1931), Comics_creator_stubs,
 * Arkadii Prikhodchenko (1969-2004), Artist_stubs,
 * Alison Armitage (born 1965), Actor_stubs,
 * Andrea Armstrong (born 1982)
 * Fred Armstrong (born 1947), People_stubs,
 * Hamilton Fish Armstrong (1893-1973), American_people_stubs,
 * Moses K. Armstrong (1832-1905)
 * Samaire Armstrong (born 1980)
 * Tim Armstrong (born 1966), Musician_stubs,
 * Margarita Armstrong-Jones (born 2002), British_nobility_stubs,

Arn-Ars

 * Henri Arnaud (1641-1721), People_stubs,
 * Yvonne Arnaud (1892-1958)
 * Ernst Moritz Arndt (1769-1860)
 * Rudolf Arndt (1835-1900)
 * Susannah Maria Arne (1714-1766)
 * Peter Arno (1904-1968), People_stubs,
 * Arnobius the Younger (born 5th), 1911_Britannica,
 * Arnold Jacobs (1915-1998)
 * Eberhard Arnold (1883-1935)
 * John Arnold (1736-1799), People_stubs,
 * Karl Arnold (1901-1958)
 * Struther Arnott (born 1934), People_stubs,
 * Letty Aronson (born 1943)
 * Magnus Aronson (born 1972)
 * Amparo Arrebato (1944-2004)
 * Henck Arron (1936-2000), People_stubs,
 * José Miguel Arroyo Delgado (born 1970)
 * Emmanuelle Arsan (born 1932), Writer_stubs,
 * Jacques Arsene d'Arsonval (1851-1940), Scientist_stubs,

Art-Arv

 * Philip van Artevelde (1340-1382), People_stubs,
 * Arthur Peacocke (born 1924), People_stubs,
 * Ellen Lewis Arthur (1837-1880), People_stubs,
 * George Arthur (1784-1854)
 * José Gervasio Artigas (1764-1850)
 * Lev Andreevich Artsimovich (born 1909), Scientist_stubs,
 * Reginald Arvizu (born 1969), Musician_stubs,

As

 * Asano Atsuko (born 1961), Actor_stubs,
 * Inejiro Asanuma (1898-1960), Japanese_people_stubs, Politician_stubs,
 * John Asgill (1659-1738), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Henry Spencer Ashbee (1834-1900), Writer_stubs,
 * Aleksei Mihailovich Isaev (1908-1971), Russian_people_stubs,
 * John Baptista Ashe (representative) (1810-1857), People_stubs,
 * Thomas Ashe (1885-1917), Ireland-related_stubs,
 * Victor Ashe (born 1945), People_stubs,
 * Hank Asher (born 1955)
 * Neal Asher (born 1961)
 * Kim Ashfield (born 1959), People_stubs,
 * Bailey Ashford (1873-1934)
 * Clifford Ashley (1881-1947)
 * Anthony Ashley-Cooper, Lord Ashley (1900-1947)
 * Robin Askwith (born 1950), People_stubs,
 * Jules Asner (born 1968)
 * Adam Asnyk (1838-1897), Polish_people_stubs,
 * John Aspinall (zoo owner) (1926-2000)
 * Neil Aspinall (born 1942)
 * Johan Asplund (born 1937)
 * Margot Asquith (1864-1945), Politician_stubs,
 * Mary Astell (1666-1731)
 * Jacob Astley, 1st Baron Astley of Reading (1579-1652), 1911_Britannica,
 * Philip Astley (1742-1814)

At

 * Atanas Atanasov (died 2002), People_stubs,
 * Edwin Atherstone (1788-1872), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature,
 * Ron Athey (born 1961), People_stubs,
 * James Richard Atkin (1867-1944), People_stubs,
 * Henry Atkins (1872-1955)
 * Robert Atkins (nutritionist) (1930-2003)
 * George Atkinson (1935-2005)
 * Henry Atkinson (1782-1842), Military_biographical_stubs,
 * Robert Chatham Atkinson (born 1929), People_stubs,
 * Oshiomogho Atogwe (born 1981)
 * Mahmoud Mahmoud Atta (born 1954)

Au

 * Theodore Aubanel (1829-1886), People_stubs,
 * John St Aubyn (1758-1839), People_stubs,
 * Louis Auchincloss (born 1917)
 * Dorothy Auchterlonie (born 1915)
 * William Eden, 1st Baron Auckland (1745-1814), 1911_Britannica,
 * Jacques Audiberti (1899-1965), Writer_stubs,
 * James Audley (1316-1386), 1911_Britannica,
 * Leopold Auenbrugger (1722-1809), Biologist_stubs,
 * Berthold Auerbach (1812-1882)
 * Ellen Auerbach (1906-2004), Artist_stubs,
 * Brian Auger (born 1939), Musician_stubs,
 * Johann Christian Wilhelm Augusti (1772-1841)
 * Anders Aukland (born 1972)
 * Nizamuddin Auliya (1238-1325)
 * Norman Ault (1880-1950)
 * Heinrich Auspitz (1835-1886), People_stubs,
 * Paul Aussaresses (born 1918), French_people_stubs,
 * Albert Austin (1881-1953), Actor_stubs,
 * John Austin (legal philosophy) (1790-1859), A_Short_Biographical_Dictionary_of_English_Literature, Philosophy_stubs,
 * Phil Austin (born 1941), Comedian_stubs,
 * Sherrié Austin (born 1970), Musician_stubs,
 * Maria Leopoldina, Archduchess of Austria (1797-1826)


text:
Svitoch

Svitoch (Світоч) is a Lviv-based Ukrainian confectionery manufacturer. It is owned by Nestlé since 1998. The company produces chocolate, chocolate candy, lollipops and many other types of candy.

Overview
LVIV CONFECTIONERY FACTORY "SVITOCH" is an enterprise of the confectionery branch of the food industry. The history goes back to the 19th century, when Lviv created small confectioners. f-ky (confectionery), in particular, the shwis confectionery. master D. Andreolli, and in 1882, the city chronicles first mentioned M. Brandstadter's ("Branka") candy store - at the place of the daughters. enterprise "Svitoch-1" (Sheptytskykh St., No. 26; currently sold). 1904 founded Society of Confectioners for Halychyna and Bukovyna, 1910 - Gazet candy and chocolate shop (at the intersection of Zavodska and Tkatska Streets). Since then, Lviv was considered a second world. capital of chocolate after Bern. 1924 K. Avdykovych-Glynska and Andrey Sheptytskyi founded one of the first Ukrainian "Fortuna Nova" sweet factory in Galicia. With the arrival of the Bolsheviks, the confectioner. enterprises were nationalized, and on their basis, f-ky named after Kirov and "Bolshevik". In 1950, the confectioner specialized. enterprises: f-ka named after Kirova began to produce only chocolate products, candies, waffles; f-ka "Bolshevik" - caramel and flour. confectioner. ware. In order to concentrate production in 1962 on the basis of these enterprises, as well as Chortki. confectioner. f-ky (Ternop region) creation. f-ku "Red Rose". In the same year, she took over. to the company "Svitoch" (however, the company traces its history back to 1882). F-ka became a producer of chocolate, candies with fillings, caramel, cookies, dragees. In 1969, a new 5-story building was built. case in which the caramel is opened. and candies and chocolate production. The company fully satisfied the needs of region of Ukraine, and its products were sold throughout the territory. USSR

The confectionery was established as Svitoch in 1962 through the merging of various confectionaries, although it traces its history under other names to 1882. In the Soviet era, Svitoch was considered one of the best manufacturers, along with the Rot Front and Babaevsky chocolate factories. After its acquisition by Nestlé in mid-1990s

Svitoch rebranded Strela candy (Стріла - Arrow) as Stozhary (Стожари - Pleiades)

At the beginning of 2015, it was a modern, high-tech, scientifically intensive and developing enterprise. There are lines for the production of waffles, chocolate bars and candies, a fundamentally new automated production for the preparation of chocolate masses.

Since 2018, Nestlé owns 100% of the company's shares.

title: Svitoch


text:
Cornelius van Zierikzee

Cornelius van Zierikzee (c. 1405 – 1462) was a Dutch priest known for his work in Scotland.

Life and times
He was born at Zierikzee, Netherlands, about 1405. The strict observance of the Franciscan Rule, upheld and propagated throughout Italy by Bernardino of Siena and Giovanni da Capistrano, was early introduced into Germany. At twenty Cornelius entered the Franciscan Order in the province of Cologne, which at that time included the greater part of the Netherlands. It was famous for the number and sanctity of its members, among whom were several Scotsmen who had been educated at the universities on the Continent.

This revival of the Franciscan life under the guidance of Bernardine no doubt came to the knowledge of King James I of Scotland. In 1436 the king requested the superiors of the order that he might have friars of the Observance sent into his kingdom; but it was not until after the provincial chapter of the Observants held at Gouda in 1447, and apparently because of a fresh application by his son King James II, that it was decided to comply with the royal wishes.

John Perioche de Mauberg, Vicar-general of the Ultramontine Observants, selected Cornelius as head of the mission. Cornelius was accompanied by six associates, of whom at least one, John Richardson, a graduate of the University of Paris, was a Scot; they were received with enthusiasm by all classes. Within a few years after the arrival of the Observants in Scotland they established nine convents in different towns; the postulants for admission to the order were numerous; youths belonging to the best families renounced the world to embrace the Franciscan life of poverty.

Legacy
Among those who received the habit from Cornelius were:
 * Jerome Lindsay of Paris, son of the Earl of Crawford, commemorated in the Franciscan Martyrology with title of blessed, pre-eminent for his humility, mortification, and spirit of prayer
 * David Crannok, who was physician to King James II and his consort Queen Margaret; he succeeded Cornelius in the government of the convents
 * Robert Keith, renowned for the sanctity of his life, a member of the family of the Earl Marishal
 * Robert Stuart, kinsman of King James V

The General Chapter of the Observants held at Mount-Luzon (Bourbonnais) erected the Scottish convents into a province, and granted it a seal representing Bernardine holding a tablet with the Holy Name of Jesus painted on it and three mitres at his feet, to mark that the Scottish province owed its origin to the companions of the saint.

The Scottish Franciscans enjoyed a great reputation throughout Europe for their austere lifestyle. James IV wrote to the pope in 1506 in praise of the Observants in his kingdom and their works. The Scottish province was in a flourishing state when the religious revolution broke out and the convents were destroyed. In 1460, John Patrick, Minister Provincial, accompanied by over one hundred priests, left Scotland for the Netherlands, where they were hospitably recognized and incorporated in the provinces of Holland and Belgium. In 1462, Cornelius, worn out by his labours and austerities, left Scotland for his own province of Cologne, where he died in the convent at Antwerp on February 21, 1462. Many miracles were reported at his tomb.

The writings of Cornelius, which consist of Conciones ad populum Scotiae, Sermones ad Fratres, and Epistolas plures, have never been published.

title: Cornelius van Zierikzee


text:
Talk:Interstate-85

This region is NOT a megalopolis. The definition of a megalopolis is a group of contiguous, densely populated metropolitan areas that combine to form a large urban complex. The region from Boston, Massachusetts to Washington, D.C. fits this definition as it is very densely populated most of the way down. However, south of D.C., the population density rapidly goes down (albeit is growing). Some would argue that Richmond, Virginia might be added to this northern "megalopolis" in the near future, but the rapidly expanding population of northern Virginia hasn't quite gotten that far yet. South of Richmond, which is where I-85 begins, is largely open rural space in between several major metropolitan areas. It is most definitely NOT a contiguous collection of densely populated metro areas.

Historically, the only time this term has been used to describe regions of the United States is by Jean Gottman in 1957, to describe the huge urban area along the eastern seaboard of the United States from Boston to Washington, D.C. According to Gottman, it resulted from changes in work and social habits. Dr. Cash 13:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed--Calling the area between Chattanooga, TN and Atlanta, GA a megalopolis is absurd. If a megalopolis is defined as two cities within two hours of each other, then most of the entire eastern seaboard would be part of some megalopolis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.95.15 (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Interstate-85


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles/Cities

Raging Place Names Controversy: Cities
''For cities, use the form {city-name}, {prefecture-name}; for example, Otaru, Hokkaido. An exceptions is that titles for major cities have been controversial; Nagasaki, Nagasaki vs Nagasaki?''

On Requested moves there have been a number of proposed moves going from both "City, Prefecture" to "City" (Nagasaki) and "City" to "City, Prefecture" (Hiroshima, Kyoto). The present wording of the manual of style is ambiguous at best. I would support removing the phrase An exceptions is that titles for major cities have been controversial; Nagasaki, Nagasaki vs Nagasaki? (this phrase needs to be cleaned up anyway if we're going to keep it) and supporting a 100% "City, Prefecture" style .CES 19:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good catch, CES. It does have to be cleaned up, and my preference is to clean it up with article titles all in the format city-name, prefecture-name but of course with appropriate redirects, e.g. Nara redirecting to Nara, Nara (not to Nara Prefecture). Fg2 03:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

How would people feel if I remove the sentence An exceptions is that titles for major cities have been controversial; Nagasaki, Nagasaki vs Nagasaki? to make our position on place names a little more concrete? CES 02:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is anyone still watching this page? I didn't get feedback except from Fg2, but I went ahead and removed the sentence in question.  It would be nice if we could reach a consensus on what we think is the proper form for cities, more specifically if certain cities deserve exceptions.  Personally I agree with Fg2 and I think all cities should be "City, Prefecture" ... to the best of my knowledge only Hiroshima, Kyoto, and now Nagasaki are just named "City". CES 01:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with "City, Prefecture" naming and appropriate redirects. -- Rick Block 13:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

As one who wrote the sentence in question, I feel sorry for confusions and subsequent troubles it made. As pointed out rightly, the sentence is ambigious and is, as now I realize, grammatically problematic. In any case, we badly need to seek a concrete position. I have started Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)/Survey. I know it's reptetious, but please vote there. -- Taku 19:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the survey Taku. I really hope we can reach a consensus (a real consensus) on this issue. CES 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Exceptions for titles of city articles
''This is kind of beating dead horse. But we have to settle this on.''

There has been a debate on the titles of some city articles in Japan. Some prefer a uniform "city, prefecture" form, while others do just "city" for major cities like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. It seems that consensus has yet to be reached. You are asked if we want such an exception. See also Talk:Nagasaki. Please vote. -- Taku 01:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * No exception; "city, prefecture"
 * +: It is easy to remember and follow. Thus, there is no confusion for both contributors and readers.
 * +: This is conventional elsewhere; e.g., Chicago, Illinois
 * +: This is a standard for writing an address in English. See Japanese addressing system.
 * -: Some titles appear silly, like Hiroshima, Hiroshima for some people.
 * Taku - Consistency is important.

 * 1) CES 15:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC) - 99.99% of Japanese cities are in this format ... why not make it 100%? I don't understand why these particular cities merit an "exception"
 * 2) That's my choice, primarily for consistency, although I can remember three or four exceptions. Fg2 09:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Taku 01:15, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) as said the above.
 * 4) We say New York, New York when we want to be clear, so we should do the same with Japanese cities, and to keep it consistent.  freshgavin  TALK   01:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Exception for the four major cities: Kyoto, Osaka, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
 * -: We still have names like Saitama, Saitama, Kagoshima, Kagoshima, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Nagoya, Aichi and many more; Nagoya or Sapporo is simply known without its prefecture name.

 * Exception for the three major cities: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.
 * -: There is still Osaka, Osaka.

Not exactly a fair summary of debate, four + points for the option you refer and none for any alternative? the City, State convention might be one that USers are used to, but it's far from universal, I refer to Brighton and Norwich not Brighton, East Sussex and Norwich, Norfolk. New York, New York, given as an example in one of the debates, is redirecting to New York City at the moment - is Osaka City (which is how it's refered to in the article) really that much worse than Osaka, Osaka? Further more, the current system seems to have been pushed through despite not actually being agreed on, see Talk:Kyoto,_Kyoto for instance. I don't have particularly strong feelings about this, but I imagine that english speakers, used to refering to Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima and so on will continue to surprised by the oddly redundant article titling of all but the first. --zippedmartin 12:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

City names
I don't understand what is the benefit of absurd article titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Osaka, Osaka. I also don't see that there has been any consensus that this is appropriate as a general rule. The vote at Talk:Hiroshima, Hiroshima clearly shows that a majority was in favor of leaving it at Hiroshima, and the vote which was conducted here was completely inconclusive - there were approximately three votes. I'm going to suggest that, at least for cities which are the eponyms of their prefecture, we should not have this silly, not at all useful form. Really, for any city which is the primary one of that name, there is no reason to include the prefecture in the article title. john k 06:29, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree -Jefu 07:06, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima are not absurd, nor are they silly; they are useful, and so I disagree. Fg2 07:43, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * The ", Hiroshima" and ", Osaka" are present as disambiguations. However, disambiguation is not necessary in these cases, any more so than it is necessary, for instance, to move Buddha to Buddha (Buddhist concept). - Nat Krause 08:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Fg2, perhaps you'd explain how these titles are useful. I fail to see anything at all useful about them. There is no danger of confusion with the prefecture, which is always at the title Osaka Prefecture - administrative subdivisions named for their capital are not normally thought to be meant when the city's name is mentioned, anyway.  As to other cities called Osaka and Hiroshima, there is no need to disambiguate - the ones which are capitals of their own prefecture are self-evidently the most important cities of that name. john k 15:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter of which title is suitable for one particular article, but how to name places in Japan. The current naming scheme is analogous to that for US cities like Chicago, Illinois; or History of Japan while Japanese history sounds clearly more natural. For place names, we have an uniform format, and etc. I conceded some sound simply stupid; Hiroshima, Hiroshima!? But unless we agree to have exceptions (the big question is the scope of exception), we should stick to them. This is why I think we should be discussing this issue here and not arbitrarily. -- Taku 03:35, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fairly easy to come up with a reasonable scope for exceptions - at the very least the rule "all cities which are the eponyms of prefectures do not need to have the prefecture in the title" would be quite clear and limited. Another possibility would be "all prefectural capitals do not need to have the prefecture in the title," although there might be some exceptions to this. I'd suggest a more basic rule - "only disambiguate when necessary to distinguish the city from a like-named city of similar or greater importance." As to Chicago, Illinois, I don't think that's necessary either - but at least this doesn't look absurd. We do not have New York, New York, any longer, and have not for a long time now. As to Japanese history vs. History of Japan, perhaps your not being a native speaker of English has led you astray here. Both terms are perfectly natural English expressions with somewhat different connotations. The term "History of Japan" implies that it will provide a narrative of the history of Japan from its beginnings to the present. The term "Japanese history" can be used to discuss any element of Japanese history, not necessarily a grand chronology. If someone says, "I'm writing a book on the history of Japan," that has a somewhat different connotation from "I'm writing a book on Japanese history." The former sounds like a textbook; the latter like a monograph. Our History of Japan article is just that - a history of Japan. An article on Japanese history would imply something a bit different. john k 04:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As an example, the current article Yokohama, Kanagawa should be at just Yokohama, since it is by far the best known and most important city called Yokohama. The article Yokohama, Aomori should remain where it is. john k 04:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I need a clarification for "only disambiguate when necessary to distinguish the city from a like-named city of similar or greater importance" Does this rule apply to (1) every city (2) every city and town (3) every municipality? Would you mind to give more examples? especially for names like Okinawa, Okinawa,Sapporo, Hokkaido, Kyoto, Kyoto and Gunma, Gunma. I don't think either (2) or (3) is practical. Needless to say, it is tedious and error prone to try to figure if a given name requires disambiguation or not. Now assume you meant (1). Then we have a situation where there is Okinawa, which is a city and Gunma, Gunma, which is a town. And do we have to rename towns when their status is promoted to a city? How should we handle current disambig pages like Yamanashi? As for Japanese history, then what about Economy of Japan? Japanese economy sounds more natural (at least to me).

 * In short, I am plainly concerned with the consistency and potential problems. So the rule "all cities which are the eponyms of prefectures do not need to have the prefecture in the title" looks more workable and I prefer something like it. -- Taku 08:23, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I would want to be constructive as well so here are some of my proposals of rules:

-- Taku 08:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Have exceptions only for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Osaka, Kyoto, Yokohama, Nagoya; it seems people can live with names like Aomori, Aomori, Kumamoto, Kumamoto and Fukuoka, Fukuoka.

Forgive me, Takuya, but I am not familiar with the distinction between cities and towns in Japan. To deal with specific issues - Okinawa, Okinawa is a special case, perhaps, since the city of Okinawa is not a large one, and when people say just "Okinawa" in English, they generally mean the island. Sapporo and Kyoto (and to my mind, at least Fukuoka), seem to be clear instances where disambiguation is not needed. Basically, I think the largest Japanese cities are the ones where this issue really matters - Kitakyushu, Fukuoka, Nagasaki, Kobe, Hiroshima, Osaka, Kyoto, Nagoya, Tokyo, Yokohama, Sapporo, at least, perhaps some others. But, I mean, the issue of determining whether a given name needs disambiguation or not is not so difficult. Given a presumption in favor of disambiguation, and the existence already of articles on most (all?) Japanese cities, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out which ones are the largest of their name, and can go at the main article. If all of the cities of a given name are small (<200,000?), they should all remain at the disambiguated location. It would require some judgment, but it would be something that would only have to be done once. john k 15:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Another possibility - whenever the main article City redirects to City, Prefecture, that article should just be at City. john k 15:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The population criterion is very confusing. Besides, every year we have to be checking if the population reached or falls below 200 thousands line. If we want to restrict the rule to large cities, we can use cities designated by government ordinance or core city, instead. I thought that it may be also workable to strip the prefecture suffix from top 20 cities or something. But this will create a situation where there is Hiroshima but Nagasaki, Nagasaki. To clarify my statement about disambiguation, I meant it would be tedious to apply the rule to every single municipality instead of just city.

 * I think what we are missing here is how to justify an exception. I do agree that Hiroshima, Hiroshima looks ugly, so, like I proposed above, it seems to make more sense to pick a couple of cities and allow for the exception for only them. In this process we must be careful about consistency; it makes wikipedia look stupid if there are the titles Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagasaki at the same time. The question in essence is how much ugliness we can live with :) -- Taku 22:48, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * Obviously, you are more familiar with the designations of Japanese cities than I am, Taku. Whatever you think would be the easiest and most consistent way to insure that the best-known Japanese cities in the west aren't disambiguated would be okay with me. john k 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The naming conventions for cities, see Naming_conventions_%28city_names%29, generally seem to prefer city rather than any disambiguated form except in the US and Canada (presumably due to the national format being city, state and city, province ). I assume the convention for Japan has been city, prefecture since without the -shi, -cho, -mura suffix the English versions of the names are highly ambiguous. For example, I note the name for the article about the city of Hiroshima in the Japanese wikipedia is 広島市, not 広島, and the address is listed as 広島県広島市, which to my ignorant Gaijin eyes looks pretty much like "Hiroshima, Hiroshima". Would it be better to revisit the decision to drop the suffix for Japanese place names? On the other hand, given that Hiroshima redirects to Hiroshima, Hiroshima and the other cities similarly redirect (i.e. Hiroshima is not a disambiguation page, but a redirect) is this even worth worrying about? What do people find so ugly about "Hiroshima, Hiroshima"? I think the proper postal address format (whatever its legal name) for the capital of the state of New York is actually "New York, New York" which contextually I read as "New York (city), New York (state)". Do people not read "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" similarly, as "Hiroshima (city), Hiroshima (prefecture)"? IMO, using non-disambiguated place names for cities is a mistake. Yes, we all know London refers to the one in England and not the one in Ontario but what does it hurt for the article name to be London, England as long as London redirects you there? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * It doesn't hurt at all. "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" makes perfect sence, even though it may seem odd to a few people. I think using the prefecture "-ken" postfixes may indeed provide a good alternative, but for the moment, as long as redirects are in place, I don't think there is a problem. JeroenHoek 10:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * New York, New York is a fairly common expression, and the name of a song reflected that. The USPS is happy when senders (especially those out of state) write "New York, NY" on envelopes, and even if it's less common in conversation than in writing, it seems reasonable to me as an article title. Wikipedia didn't choose that, but it would have been reasonable. Likewise, Kyoto, Kyoto is very reasonable as a postal address, and even though it's rare in spoken Japanese it makes sense in writing. "Kyoto, Kyoto Prefecture" would make more sense, and maybe "Kyoto City, Kyoto Prefecture" more still, but there's no need to go that far. "Kyoto, Kyoto" is a good middle ground, being the closest thing to correct that's reasonable, and most reasonable thing that's close to correct. Also, it's memorable, since it fits the pattern that we've established as City, Prefecture for every city in Japan. It makes it easy for editors to get the links right, and redirects make it easy for readers to get the article they want. Who is badly served by this system?
 * One problem with making exceptions is where to stop. One person wants Kyoto, Osaka; the next wants Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then it's Nara, and the person who lived in Toyama must be served. Along come Fukushima, Fukuoka, Okayama, Fukuyama (whoops! that one's not a prefecture) and by the tenth or fifteenth one, everybody's tired of it. Meanwhile, people are battling to get some of them reverted.
 * Why bother with all this? We have a good system. The editors can reliably get the link right, and the readers can reliably get to the articles they want. Let's spend our time improving articles rather than trying, for the third time this year (is that count right?), to make exceptions to a simple, workable rule. Fg2 11:44, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said way back above (though no one seemed to bother reading it), City, State might seem natural to USers, but personally I'd throw a fit if someone started renaming every town in the UK Town, County on the basis there are lots of other places named after 'em - the tag exists for just this purpose. The lot of you need to remember common names - the emphasis is not 'consistency' but 'least surprise'. In a way Japan geeks shouldn't be discussing this at all, you're perfectly aware that Hiroshima might refer to city or prefecture, or somewhere else altogether - to the common user, as demonstrated by the few general discussions that have taken place, the insistance on strict convention just looks odd. And once again, New York City is the article title, not New York, New York, and as a parallel, 京都市 is the article title, not 京都,京都. It's a lot of fuss over nothing, but don't enforce a policy just because you like everything to look the same, against the usage in English. Simple rule, if you're doing a straight redirect from a simple name to a complex one, something is wrong. --zippedmartin 16:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC) Simult. edit, was aimed up here
 * Fg2 - The post office address "New York, NY" does not refer to the entire city of New York, but only Manhattan. Letters to Brooklyn are properly addressed to "Brooklyn, NY," those to Queens to "Flushing, NY" or "Long Island City, NY," or "Jamaica, NY," or "Far Rockaway, NY."  And the proper post office address for the capital of New York is Albany, NY.  So please stop trying to prove your point from stuff you know nothing about.  Beyond this, I still don't see what would be unworkable about "if the city name redirects to City, Prefecture, that article should just be at 'city name'" rule.  There's a huge number of Japanese cities for which this is the case.  If either a) there's already a disambiguation notice at the top, or if there's only one city of a given name, I don't see why we should disambiguate it.  It should be noted that in the United States, almost every city is going to have a namesake of some sort, and, furthermore, we have articles on every city, town, village, borough, township, and census-designated place in the United States.  And there's a whole ton of them. In Japan, there seem to be fewer repeat names, so disambiguating all city names seems unnecessary.  The fact that in Japanese there can be confusion between city and prefecture if we don't distinguish is irrelevant to the fact that in English, we assume that if we just get "Name" that's going to refer to the city.  I fail to see what it is about Japanese cities that makes the U.S./Canada model more advisable than a "don't disambiguate unless necessary" model.

Incomplete list of articles on Japanese cities at form City, Prefecture to which the article City redirects:

 * 1) Yokohama
 * 2) Kobe
 * 3) Osaka
 * 4) Nagoya
 * 5) Kitakyushu
 * 6) Nagasaki
 * 7) Okayama
 * 8) Naha
 * 9) Sapporo
 * 10) Hiroshima
 * 11) Shimonoseki
 * 12) Aomori
 * 13) Toyama

The only major city I've found which doesn't do this is Fukuoka, which is a disambiguation page, but given the other examples, it probably should redirect to Fukuoka, Fukuoka. It seems to me that either, all these pages should be made into disambiguation (which would be absurd), or the main article should be moved there. If there is no need for a disambiguation page, why is there a need for a disambiguated article title?

BTW, here's Disambiguation: ''Some topics have a primary topic which editors agree is the primary meaning for the term (Rome, for example). In this case the disambiguation page is named Rome (disambiguation), and the primary topic keeps the topic word or phrase.''

Does everyone here disagree that these cities are the primary topics in English of the names Tokyo, Kyoto, Osaka, Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and so forth? If not, could you explain why you feel this? I just don't understand why there is a need for a special naming convention for Japanese cities at all. john k 16:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Given that there is an established convention, and it would take effort (and in at least some cases, effort from an admin) to move the articles and fix the navigational templates (etc.), I think the proper question here is what is the compelling rationale for making this change?   Is this perhaps a US/UK difference?  I'm from the US, and I don't know of anyone who would object to an article about, say, London, being titled "London, England".  BTW - the New York example is mine, not FG2's (including the capital mistake) and Tokyo is actually a special kind of prefecture (not a city).  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * If talking to a (US) friend about Osaka City, what would you refer to it as? As for the 'effort' wiggle, it took effort to move the articles to this scheme in the first place, and it happened despite objections on some of the talk pages, it's not much work to move articles back over the common redirect. And as I said, twice already, City, State is peculiar to your continent, probably due to extrodinany lack of imagination when naming cities, requires a lot of dab. --zippedmartin 19:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The "established convention" never had any consensus behind it (look at the "vote" on the matter further up this page - nobody voted. And when individual votes were held, as at Hiroshima, they came out in favor of keeping it at Hiroshima).  As far as the work involved, I would be happy to do that myself (and I am an admin, so no problems there).  The NY mistake was made by both FG2 and you, but yeah, you made it first. john k 20:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * 99.9% of Japanese cities in Wikipedia are in [City, Prefecture] format ... rather than start down the slippery slope of trying to figure out which cities deserve an "exception" why not leave it alone? As we've seen with Japanese personal names, coming up with somewhat arbitrary rules and conventions just leads to even more confusion.  I don't see the point of changing conventions, especially when the main argument seems to be that in the case where city and prefecture are the same, this offends some people's sense of aesthetics!  Don't fix what ain't broken! CES 23:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should Japanese cities be treated completely differently from those of most other countries in the world? For American and Canadian cities, it makes some sense because there's so many repeat city names. This simply isn't a major problem for Japanese cities, and there is absolutely no reason to have the [City, Prefecture] format as a basic convention at all. I would suggest a [City] format, except in cases where disambiguation is necessary. For non-city municipalities, I am happy to leave the [Town, Prefecture] form as a convention, if that's what people want, but I really don't see why the usual "don't disambiguate unless you have to" rule is not appropriate to Japanese cities. As to arbitrary rules and conventions, what is more arbitrary than deciding that Japanese cities need this form of pre-emptive disambiguation? john k 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree completely -Jefu 08:58, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess I just don't really see what the harm is in having the prefecture in the title. By having the prefecture in the article title, the user knows exactly which city is being discussed the instant the page opens.  Not only that, but it lets the user know that indeed a city is being discussed instead of a prefecture or even a personal name or geographical feature (the default assumption is not always the city ... think of Okinawa, maybe even places like Yamaguchi and Kochi).  The very fact that many Japanese cities (including most of the big ones) have names similar to or identical to prefectures, other cities, personal names, geographic features, etc. indicates to me at least that "pre-emptive disambiguation" is not unwarranted. CES 13:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points of potential "harm." Firstly, there is an issue of consistency. Not within Japanese cities, but between Japanese cities and other cities. With the exception of a few American cities (which I have also argued should not be disambiguated), most large cities are only disambiguated in the instance that they need to be. Japanese cities are disambiguated even if there is absolutely no need to disambiguate them. Is there anything named Kitakyushu besides the city? The issue of prefectures is a red herring. Italian provinces also share names with Italian cities, but that has not led to this kind of disambiguation for Italian cities. In fact, most countries in the world name their provinces after cities. But because the province/prefecture is almost always, in English, referred to as "Suchandsuch Prefecture," confusion doesn't arise. Obviously, there are some exceptions. "Okinawa" most commonly refers to the island (oddly, our article Okinawa redirects to Okinawa Prefecture, which includes the other Ryukyu Islands - this should probably be changed). Kochi should certainly be disambiguated, because there is a major Indian city of that name. Particularly small cities that share names with prefectures, like Yamaguchi, can perhaps still be disambiguated. But the fact that the line can sometimes be hard to draw doesn't mean that we should just say "No line is to be drawn! Onward with Tokyo, Tokyo!" john k 15:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I think your post proves my point. Half of it is taken up with concessions for reasons why cities need to be disambiguated (and you don't get to even half of them).  The biggest problem with going on a case-by-case basis, as you seem to propose, is that what needs to be disambiguated is often ambiguous.  If you hear "Hiroshima" you likely think of the city.  But what about "Tokushima"? "Okayama"? City or prefecture? Not to mention the fact that many English-speakers (even smart Wikipedians!) probably couldn't tell you what a prefecture was, let alone tell you what the wikipedia convention is for prefecture articles.

 * I understand your point--that for a handful of cities (Kitakyushu, Nagoya, etc.) there's no need for the [,Prefecture] so why bother? But, the cities that have no need at all to be disambiguated are far outnumbered by the cities where there is indeed ambiguity.  And there are dozens if not hundreds of cases that are borderline.  And as we've seen on articles such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or even this talk page) we end up spending lots of time going around and around on a point that will never satisfy everyone.

 * Sticking to the rule of [City, Prefecture] is not an example of "no line is to be drawn." On the contrary, it's the most decisive and discriminating line that can be drawn.  99.9% of the time the system works.  Why tear it down for that 0.1% of the time when it might seem redundant?  Having a rule, and a simple rule at that, eliminates confusion 100% of the time.  And that is what should count in an encyclopedia.

 * I'll give you one point though: there shouldn't be a Tokyo,Tokyo!

 * CES 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "99.9% of the time?" Where is this number coming from.  I will concede for the sake of argument that for 90% of Japanese city articles, this convention works okay.  But I would guess that for, say, 80% of actual page views of Japanese cities, people are going to be looking at the largest cities, for which the disambiguation looks stupid and unprofessional.  Furthermore, as to "going around and around on a point that will never satisfy everyone" for Hiroshima and Nagasaki is another red herring - the only reason that anybody thinks those articles should be at Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Nagasaki is because we have a convention (never agreed to by a consensus!!) that all Japanese city articles (except, apparently, Tokyo and Kyoto) must be at this format.  If we removed this standard, it is fairly clear that those articles would rest at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As to Tokushima and Okayama, if you click on those links you will notice that those articles already redirect to Tokushima, Tokushima and Okayama, Okayama, suggesting that the city use is predominant, anyway.  Beyond this, the fact that most English-speakers may not know what a prefecture is is irrelevant.  If they don't know what a prefecture is, they're incredibly unlikely to be looking for the prefecture when they type in Okayama.  For those who do know what a prefecture is, they are unlikely to think that they will reach the prefecture by typing in Okayama.  (I would guess that most people who know enough to be typing in "Okayama" will have some basic knowledge of Japan).  At any rate, as I've said before, the prefecture is a red herring.  See Antwerp, Florence, Venice, Milan, Naples, etc. for cities that are also the eponyms of subnational divisions, but which we feel no need to disambiguate.  I genuinely think that disambiguation is only needed in a few cases - mostly not-particularly-notable cities that share their name either with a more important city or with other not-particularly-notable cities.  Okinawa, Okinawa is, as I said before, a special case - but because it shares its name with the island, not because it shares its name with the prefecture. john k 16:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here ... from the beginning your primary argument has been that "the disambiguation looks stupid," and it's hard to have a debate when your main sticking point involves your sense of aesthetics. If your argument was that the disambiguation system was inaccurate, confusing, or unhelpful (even you concede that 90% of the time it's at least ok) then I could see having a valid debate based on facts and logic. But it's hard to say much when your arguments are largely subjective: the system looks "stupid" "silly" and "absurd," the prefectures are "red herrings," assumptions about how knowledgeable people are about Japan. Consequently, Tokyo is a metropolis (都), not a city/prefecture tag team--my point in saying this is not to show you up, but to simply show that most of us don't know what we don't know (definitely count me in this group!)--another reason why assumptions are dangerous and conventions help.

This will be my final word on the subject: the system is effective and helpful at least 90% of the time and eliminates any and all possible confusion 100% of the time ... sorry if some people think it looks stupid, but as a convention for article titles I think that's a pretty darn good success rate. CES 14:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to say I'm with john k here. This is another situation where I've never seen Japanese cities referred to in English as City, Prefecture. And, while I don't disagree with the point that it looks utterly stupid, the practical reason is that it is confusing to see Hiroshima, Hiroshima in the title of an article. Has anyone explored at least naming them "Hiroshima, Hiroshima Prefecture"? That would at least be an improvement. Although I think if the body of the article notes the prefecture in which the city is located, that is where such information should be conveyed. As someone else pointed out elsewhere on this page, the information doesn't need to go in the title. That's what the body of the article is for. -Jefu 14:27, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

CES - I certainly think it is unhelpful. That's what I mean when I say "completely unnecessary." It probably is confusing for most English-speakers, who are, as you note, completely unfamiliar with the Japanese prefecture system. I didn't say prefectures were "red herrings." I said that the argument that people will be confused between prefectures and cities is a red herring. I will add that I have not conceded that 90% of the time it's at least ok. I conceded for the sake of argument that it is okay for 90% of articles. I would say that probably for 90% of hits, it is not okay, and I tend to think it's not ideal for a pretty high percentage of articles. As to eliminating confusion - it only eliminates confusion for people who are aware of the prefecture system, which you yourself have admitted is not terribly many English-speaker. For those unaware of the prefecture system, it seems as though the name is being repeated for no reason. Disambiguation should be used to disambiguate - and in many of these cases there is no actual need to disambiguate. Furthermore, you have yet to address the fact that for a huge percentage of the major Japanese cities, the article City already redirects to City, Prefecture. If we were worried that people wouldn't be looking for the article on the city when they type in City, we should make these pages disambiguation pages. Finally, whatever the established policy, it seems to me that a positive case has to be made for having a naming system that is at such wide variance from generic wikipedia naming conventions. So if I have not made completely convincing positive arguments for my position, it is because I feel that I am not the one who should have to make positive arguments for what is essentially a negative position. At root, my position is "there is no need for a special naming system for articles on Japanese cities. We ought to make sure that disambiguation, when necessary, is consistent, but that is all." Since this is the default position for city articles everywhere except the United States (most major Canadian cities, for instance, are not "pre-emptively disambiguated"), you should have to explain why it is not sufficient for Japanese cities, and why a specific standard is necessary. john k 14:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Very well put; agree completely. Noel (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto. I agree as well. -Jefu 17:00, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Given that we've been around and around on this, and there seem to be a fair number of people who are committed to different views on this, would it be wise to try to devise a poll on this issue? I'd want to think carefully, though, about exactly what the option (or options) should be for changing from the current set-up. john k 17:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I hate going back on my promise of my last post being my last word on the subject, but I apparently haven't explained myself (positively or negatively!). If we are going to have a poll I'd like the chance to make my comments clearly one last time (although, I'd hoped that's what I'd been doing all along, so I apologize for any redundancy).

 * My main reasons why the convention should stay in 100% usage:
 * It immediately lets the user know the article is about a city (ie disambiguates from prefectures, other cities of the same name, personal names, natural objects, etc.)
 * It immediately lets the user know what prefecture the city is in
 * It draws a decisive and accurate line in the sand and eliminates the need for debate on individual city talk pages

 * Comments and responses to common arguments:
 * I think that Japanese city names are a unique case, and probably need disambiguation more than even American city names. Why?  Because the potential for ambiguity is high and comes from multiple sources.  Take "Ishikawa."  It's a prefecture, a city, a surname, and the name of probably dozens if not hundreds of rivers in Japan.  This type of situation is quite common in Japan.  If someone types "Ishikawa" into the search box, we need to take into account that he or she may be searching for any one of these.  Same goes for "Yamaguchi," "Hiroshima," etc. etc.  Having a consistent format clears up any possible confusion.
 * If the prefecture issue is a "red herring," then it's because of a naming convention identical in spirit to the city name convention--that of calling all prefecture articles "X Prefecture" even when the need to do so is not immediately clear. More proof that conventions work when adhered to, even when a few exceptions exist (disambiguating "Tochigi" essentially serves no more purpose than doing the same to "Nagoya").
 * American cities are in the [City, State] system, Italian (and other) cities aren't. So?  The logical conclusion is that the [City, State/Prefecture] system evolved (or was it intelligently designed?) because it filled an actual need in the cases in which it became convention.  Egg before the chicken.
 * Again, the major argument for getting rid of 100% usage of this convention is that when city and prefecture have the same name, it looks stupid. Are we seriously having a debate about whether article titles look stupid?  Apparently we are though, because to the best of my knowledge the only city talk pages that get into these naming conventions debates are places like Hiroshima and Kyoto, not Yokohama or Nagoya.
 * Although the prefecture name is also in the body of the article, having it in the article name immediately lets the reader know which city is being discussed, and assuming they know where the prefectures are, a pinpointed idea of where the city is located without even needing to look at the article.
 * I really don't buy the argument that "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" confuses people. Everyone in the world knows the song "New York, New York" ... I really can't find it possible to believe that the [City, Prefecture] format is really blowing people's minds.  Let's give our fellow Wikipedians some credit!  At the worst, people don't know why Hiroshima is "repeated."  I don't think I'd really call that "confusion" as in "what the hell page is this?!?" confusion.
 * Conventions are only truly useful when applied all of the time. Look no further than the Japanese personal name mess for proof of real confusion when conventions are sparingly applied.  Or the emperor names debate above or the date debate below for cases when there is no obvious guideline for a convention.  The [City, Prefecture] convention is 100% accurate 100% of the time, no matter what angle you look at it from.  It's helpful to many if not most users, and at worst it serves no purpose to the people who don't know about prefectures.  At absolute worst it offends the aesthetics of some people.  Let's look at the big picture here.

 * John, I hope I explained my position accurately and whether you agree or not, I hope I at least addressed the comment that started this whole line of conversation: I don't understand what is the benefit of absurd article titles like Hiroshima, Hiroshima and Osaka, Osaka. I feel like the major issue is being missed in your comments: the question is not whether "Hiroshima, Hiroshima" looks absurd, but whether the system as a whole makes sense.

 * If people have concrete alternative solutions rather than just complaints about the present system, let's please see them and take a vote so we can move on to bigger and better things. Like naming order =) CES 22:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My main problem, with all of the issues on this page, is that most of you are looking at stuff from the perspective of Japophiles and not considering the actual users of en.wikip. You guys all know the intracacies of dates, emperors, placenames, naming order, transcription issues etc... and assume that everyone else should as well. Fact is, wikipedia *has* a disambiguation policy, and there's no reason it shouldn't apply here. Kent is at Kent, not County of Kent, England, despite the pretty impressively long Kent (disambiguation) page. I've not seen any good argument so far for applying rigid naming conventions to Japanese places, nor any kind of concensus for doing so. My concrete alternative solution? Just follow the general Naming conventions: When there's no obvious 'main candidate' for a string, stick the dab at the root. If the root is a redirect, you're doing something wrong. Convention for the sake of convention is silly. --zippedmartin 00:27, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hiroshima The city. 99% of eng lang queries on "Hiroshima" want the city.
 * Hiroshima Prefecture Guess.
 * Hiroshima (disambiguation) List minor towns, rivers, surnames, rock bands, types of fruit, asteroids, etc

Thanks Zippedmartin - this is exactly what I have been trying to say, but much briefer. john k 00:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Hottentot has moved Kobe, Hyogo to Kobe. Fg2 04:20, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * The move occurred unilaterally and in violation of the J MoS ... I think it should be moved back to where it was unless and until we resolve this debate to the contrary. CES 11:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OMG! World will explode. Some editor not involved in the discussions here moved an article in-line with general naming conventions because of a query on talk, rather than keeping it at a location proposed by some editiors here. Why not leave it as-is until this discussion is resovled? Certainly don't move it back for being "in violation of the J MoS", which, quite frankly, is a joke. --zippedmartin 12:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry you think the Manual of Style for Japan-related articles is a joke ... most people here would disagree of course (and I wonder why you're here if it's a waste of your time?). I see nothing on the Kobe talk page that indicates a discussion of this move, on the contrary I see a request for further disambiguation.  Whether you agree with the current convention or not, surely you don't advocate the unilateral moving of a page as major as Kobe?  The [City, Prefecture] format is not a proposal, it is the standard on the Japan-related MoS.  The convention was established because it was deemed useful and helpful to most.  When a concensus is reached that it is no longer useful and helpful to most, a change will be made through a process of discussion and voting.  But making changes to the MoS without discussion or concensus weakens your argument and is an insult to the people who work hard on these topics, people who work not to advance their personal objectives but to make Wikipedia better! CES 13:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, my personal objective in life is to make you poor dedicated encyclopedists miserable by moving your articles around (don't quote that out of context, irony doesn't travel well). The thing is, the manual you're refering to as scripture does not relect concensus, and you're fooling yourself if you think it does - just read the comments by various people above. If you poll a limited number of Japophiles, you won't nesesarily get the results most users want, and there are some things that 'expertise' doesn't help with. --zippedmartin 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ehe, if you're going to revert my change with no comment CES, I suggest you at least move Hokkaido to the silly Hokkaido Prefecture that the 'J MoS' is ordering there. --zippedmartin 12:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, you posted while I was still typing. My comments above stand: if you have a problem with the MoS, bring it up for discussion.  Don't just change it on your own.  If you think something is silly, say why you think so and propose a change.  Ideas like yours bring about change in Wikipedia.  Actions like yours are what trigger edit wars. CES 13:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahaha, don't try and pull the 'acting unilaterally' card on me. Hokkaido has been there for over a month, and the objection was first raised well over a year ago - with no counter argument presented. If the 'manual' you're refering people to doesn't reflect the concensus, it needs to be changed, and this is wiki - a revert with no comment is what triggers edit wars, not updating pages. --zippedmartin 13:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just in case any unfortunates wander into this debate, like I did a while back, this is the concensus of three that CES refers to. If people are in straw poll mood, I'd suggest they stick it somewhere where average users of wikipedia have a chance of seeing it, and don't weight the question in such a ridiculous manner. Personally, I think the issue is clear already, though some editors want a special-Japan-version that is opposite to everything in the main MoS, this isn't a case it's needed. --zippedmartin 14:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Responses:

 * I plead ignorance on Hokkaido ... I was on vacation most of the summer and have no knowledge or participation in the switch between Hokkaido and Hokkaido Prefecture either this summer or last year. I am not the Manual of Style, so save your gloating.  If what you say happened did happen then it should be reverted in my opinion.  Still, I'm not sure why you think that two wrongs make a right.

 * I'm not really sure what it is you want to accomplish here, especially by insulting the people who edit these pages. We held a discussion a while back and the concensus (sorry, but seeing how this is hardly a "hot" topic in the grand scheme of Wikipedia, it didn't seem to attract much interest or opinion outside of the "japophile" crowd) was that the convention stay.  We've had another discussion in the last few weeks and the opinion seems to be split about 50/50 and there's been no vote.  Results inconclusive.  You're mad because "japophiles" are making guidelines for Japan-related articles.  Do you not see the irony?  Who else is going to set the guidelines?  The "average user of Wikipedia" probably doesn't give a darn about most of the stuff debated here or most of the articles the guidelines effect.  It comes down to a question of which is more important for a rule: the number of articles it affects or the number of article hits.  It's a question of perspective, not "expertise" that makes the difference.

 * Personally, I think the city name convention is useful and worthy of an exception to the general MoS. At the same time, I think the parameters for cities could be improved.  As I've always said, there are cities that probably don't need disambiguation in the title.  You're beating a dead horse with the Hiroshima issue.  I think most people here would probably agree that Hiroshima doesn't need to be disambiguated.  My argument is that for the sake of the whole system (which I argue is useful except for a few exceptions) [Hiroshima, Hiroshima] causes no harm.  My point is that before making a switch from [Hiroshima, Hiroshima] to [Hiroshima], it needs be decided ahead of time rather than on a case by case basis which other cities should have an exception and how to set up guidelines to describe this change in convention.  If you are arguing that the convention works except for a few exceptions, then let's work to fix the situation.  However, if you are arguing that the convention in its entirety is not useful, then I disagree strongly and I'm not sure we'd be able to find common ground. CES 15:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than "gloating", "insulting... people", getting "mad", "not see[ing] the irony", "beating a dead horse" or just "arguing" anything any further, I'll present you with a simple choice, to be acted on as soon as you read this message. Either: Fair? I'm gonna go back to actually editing articles for a bit, less circular than the politics. --zippedmartin 17:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Move the Hokkaido page to Hokkaido Prefecture where the current version of the MoS (J) explicitly says it should be, present your reason for the move on the talk page, and be prepared to debate the change and listen to the arguments of others.
 * Change the line in the MoS (J) to reflect the current status yourself, as you will revert me if I 'change it on my own'.

 * I'm the person who most recently moved the article to Hokkaido, simply because "Hokkaido Prefecture" is redundant. It'd be like having an article at "PIN number" or "ATM machine". If the manual of style says it should be at "Hokkaido Prefecture", the manual of style needs to be changed. (Alternatively: Have an article at Hokkaido about the island, and one at Hokkaido (prefecture) about the prefecture. Just a thought.) --Golbez 17:54, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * With me and you, that's a concensus of two. Get one more person, we'll have a mandate to go round saying people are acting 'unilaterally and in violation of the J MoS' if they move it back. --zippedmartin 18:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Zippy - While I'm a little disappointed that you've regressed to giving orders, parroting my comments (how old are you?), and attempting to change the subject to Hokkaido of all things, I am pleased to see that you've grasped the "concensus" idea at least. Get a few more people and I personally see no problem with changing the MoS, if that's what a concensus indicates. You seem to be missing the point--this isn't about Hokkaido. And no matter how hard you're trying, it's not personal either. I reverted your change to the MoS because you did so without discussion or concensus, an act not much different from vandalism. You got caught at it. If you want to talk about Hokkaido, please start another discussion thread, this one's long enough as it is and going nowhere fast. CES 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * As CES is choosing to ignore my simple suggestion, may I request another editor tries revising the wording? I don't want to do it again myself, treading on the hallowed MoS (J) ground switched me from being ignored to being refered to in the diminutive and having my age questioned (what's next? sexuality?) Oh, and if you keep refering to your concensus, it's fair to make fun of the fact that it was three votes in a weighted straw poll - which seems to give you the right to berate people but not to correct a giant fallacy in the current version. --zippedmartin 00:28, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not so sure about what I might accomplish here but I want to try to write about some historical background and sort out things. (I have been following the debate but has been distracted by a snap election in Japan :) I was hoping to see some consensus to emerge but it didn't happen very unfortunately.

 * Among issues we have here, one is about the procedure; that's how to come up with a convention and enforce it. I am the who started this page with a hope to ensure the consistency in style and, more importantly, gives a quick guideline to those who contribute to Japan-related articles. In other words, I believe the manual of style must both be consistent about style and reflect the views of the majority of contributors. I don't suppose that there is a correct style and an incorrect one but one that is preferred by many and and one that is preferred by few. To reflect the preferences of contributors, we, however, should look at not just the sheer numbers of contributors but those who do actual many contributions to many articles. In this case, the likes of Rick Block do a lot of tedious but very invaluable edits, and we must agree that we can't ignore the voices of those and the manual of style, if any, needs to be something preferred by such people. They may appear to be authority figure policing articles, but that's something we badly need in wikipedia. I have seen so many valuable contributors leaving wikipedia because they think the editing process here is not functioning, and we all should agree that

 * In any rate, we are probably all aware of problems so I don't have to repeat here. Instead, I started a new page Explanatory note for Japan-related articles. Some people (i.e., User:WhisperToMe and Jefu) have suggested to put a footnote at each article to inform readers about the conventions. So I thought we can put a link to this page at each article in the form of footnote, and we can prevent disparity from arising between those who follow this manual of style and those who are unaware of it and obliviously create inconsistency when they try to fix a problem. -- Taku 01:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds like a good idea. I think part of the problem is, as you said, many people are unaware of the conventions and why they arose.  I commented a little more on the footnote idea below. CES 02:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Statement of case

A statement of case is any of a number of formal documents used in the courts of England and Wales under the Civil Procedure Rules (or CPR). The Claim Form (which may also include summary or all the particulars of claim, Defence and Response are all statements of case.

The term "pleadings" continues to be used, though incorrectly, to refer to statements of case, the preferred terminology used by the Civil Procedure Rules.

title: Statement of case


text:
Moses ben Jacob of Coucy

Rabbi Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, also known as Moses Mikkotsi (משה בן יעקב מקוצי; Moses Kotsensis), was a French Tosafist and authority on Halakha (Jewish law). He is best known as the author of one of the earliest codifications of Halakha, the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol.

Biography
Moses of Coucy lived in the first half of the thirteenth century. His name suggests he was born or raised in Coucy in Northern France. He was a descendant of a family of distinguished scholars. He was the brother-in-law of Tosafist Shimshon of Sens and Shimshon of Coucy (HaSar MiCoucy).

He studied under Judah of Paris, and Yehudah HaChasid. Following in the latter's footsteps he traveled through Provence and Spain to strengthen religiosity among the Jews and teaching them the way to serve God.

In 1240 he was one of the four rabbis who were required to defend the Talmud, in a public disputation in Paris, and it is likely that the need for a work like the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol was driven by the decrees against the Talmud which had been promulgated in France, and had led to the confiscation and burning of all Talmud manuscripts in 1242.

Works
The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (ספר מצוות גדול) (in English: The Great Book of Commandments; abbreviated "SeMaG"), completed in 1247, deals with the 365 negative commandments and the 248 positive commandments, separately discussing each of them according to the Talmud and the decisions of the Rabbis. "SeMaG" also contains much non-legal, moralistic teaching. References to the "SeMaG" are by section (positive or negative commandments) and a number for each commandment within its section.

Rabbi Moses' arrangement and presentation are heavily influenced by Maimonides' discussion of the commandments in the Sefer Hamitzvot and by his codification of the Halakha in the Mishneh Torah. However, unlike Maimonides, Rabbi Moses presents lengthy discussions of the different interpretations and legal opinions. He also makes extensive use of other codes, and particularly of the commentaries of Rashi and the Tosafot, usually favouring these Ashkenazi traditions over Maimonides.

He was also the author of Old Tosafot to Yoma and of some published in the collection "Sugyot HaShas" (Berlin, 1736).

title: Moses ben Jacob of Coucy


text:
Moshe Gafni

Moshe Gafni (משה גפני, born 5 May 1952 ) is an Israeli politician, Member of the Knesset, and leader of the Ashkenazi Haredi party United Torah Judaism.

Early life
Born in Tel Aviv, Gafni was educated in a yeshiva, and later moved to and worked as head of a Kollel in Ofakim. He lives in Bnei Brak, is married, and has three children.

Political career
He was first elected to the Knesset on Degel HaTorah's list in 1988, and was appointed Deputy Minister of Religious Affairs in Yitzhak Shamir's government in 1990. For the 1992 elections, the party joined Agudat Yisrael in forming an alliance called United Torah Judaism, which won four seats. Although he initially lost his seat, Gafni entered the Knesset in 1994 as part of a rotation agreement between the two factions. A similar arrangement operated after the 1996 elections, with Gafni taking the seat for the first half of the session (i. e., until 1998).

Early elections in 1999 meant that Gafni re-appeared in the Knesset sooner than expected. This time, no rotation agreement was in place, so he served his full term, and was re-elected in both 2003 and 2006. When Degel HaTorah split from Agudat Yisrael during the latter stages of the 16th Knesset, Gafni was appointed the party's Parliamentary Group Chairman.

In the 18th Knesset, Gafni was the chairman of the Knesset's financial committee.

Views and opinions
Gafni was strongly opposed to the Supreme Court ruling that the state must recognize gay marriages carried out abroad, stating: "We don't have a Jewish state here. We have Sodom and Gomorrah here." However, he was one of the few ultra-Orthodox public figures to condemn the violence carried out by members of the community over plans for the 2006 Jerusalem gay pride parade.

In February 2016, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized Gafni and other government leaders for making disparaging remarks about Reform and Conservative Judaism. Gafni, following a decision to expand the egalitarian section of the Western Wall, declared he would refuse to recognize the decision, and that Reform Jews were "a group of clowns who stab the Holy Torah".

In 2023 Gafni and Ya'akov Asher submitted a bill that would have banned Proselytizing of Christianity in Israel.

title: Moshe Gafni


text:
Talk:Charlie Hennigan

Untitled
Does anyone know the proper spelling of Hennigan's first name? Half the sources I see have it Charlie while the other half say Charley. --Cholmes75 13:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charlie Hennigan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://voterportal.sos.la.gov/home.aspx?galogin=voter
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516141945/http://www.caddoclerk.com/results_040602.htm to http://www.caddoclerk.com/results_040602.htm

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) 13:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Page name
I've noticed that there's a conflict with Hennigan's nickname, some sources say Charlie, as the Tennessee Titans and the Northwestern State Demons does. But his NFL profile and PFR bio says Charley.

I think is better to use Charley, because is the one that NFL and PFR uses. So I suggest a name change to @Eagles247, @Hey man im josh or any admin that is able to change the titles. Sergio Skol (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

 * @Sergio Skol: What did they use at the time? Have we checked newspaper sources by any chance? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TBH I have no clue, as you can see in the "Untitled" topic above, this problem has been there for, at least, 18 years ago. The only newspaper I've found is this one, but there says Charles. So we could use Charles as well. Or what do you think 'bout?

Edit: The newspaper uses Charlie as well.

Sergio Skol (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Using Newspapers.com, there are 11,000 results for "Charlie" and 10,000 results for "Charley". I was expecting a huge difference and I'm surprised the results are nearly evenly split. I'd avoid changing the article title in this instance but add a note that "Charley" is also how it is commonly spelled. In this case, a Requested Move should be started as well. Eagles 24/7 (C)  19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I also thought it was the best thing. Keep title as Charlie and say something like, "also known as Charley" in the article's top. Sergio Skol (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charlie Hennigan


text:
Template talk:File copyright request

Template:Image copyright request
I agree this is a little too long. We should be directing the users how to put templates on, not to copy and paste the GFDL text from the template, for example, put the tag GFDL on. Also give the tags for the other licences you mention. I might do this if I get a chance.--michael180 13:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I made major changes. Now we need to mirror this on Template:Image source. --michael180 15:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

...this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.
 * Not necessarily.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:
 * An open content licence
 * Public Domain
 * Fair Use
 * Fair use is not a license.

The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence.
 * There is no consensus on the so-called "best" license.

''Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government.''
 * I think you were right to add something about images created for the government. --Ellmist 21:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I was just trying to make it more user friendly.

 * 1) I agree with the part about who is the copyright holder not being nessary. Someone else put that in, I don't like it.

Reguarding Image:Aurora-rye.jpg: I made it. I don't know how to edit it, but could someone please set it as a "logo" because it is the logo for my Project. thank you

 * 1) Next, I say we change "There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:" to There are 3 basic ways an image can be on Wikipedia:
 * Under an open content licence
 * Releaced into the Public Domain
 * Allowed because of Fair Use

 * 1) About the best licence, if you can find a beter way to say that, fine. Also you could say :Most work, in the open source community, inclding Wikipedia, is licenced under..."

 * 1) Thank You.

Feel free to change what I wrote. --michael180 15:23, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image legality questions
The Untagged images project is going to start a new help page for people that get their images tagged as no source, or no license (see discussion ) At Image legality questions. image copyright, image source and Orphanbot's message will all point there as a centralized clearing house for questions so that they don't sit on individuals talk pages for long, and to help with the automated notifications. - cohesion t 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Request change
It would appear that the was put into the actual code of the template itself. It should be moved to the section, no? --TeaDrinker 03:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Whops! My bad, fixed. --Sherool (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Plz, add ru-wiki ru:Шаблон:Image status ask. Thx. Alex Spade (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌, but I set it up so that non-admins can do it now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

mk interwiki
Please add mk:Шаблон:Барање за лиценца interwiki. By the way, what's that PD-self doing at the bottom? --iNkubusse? 14:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

 * ✅ But note that interwikis and cstegories should go on the template documentation, which is unprotected. The PD-self is a "see also". Just a license note for users who are unsure how to upload their own work most likely. You could ask the creator (under the template's "history" link). Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk)  16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Image copyright request → Template:File copyright request –
 * per the switch from the Image: namespace to the File: namespace Logan Talk Contributions 22:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Bit pointless really, but if someone feels strongly about it, I can't see why not. Jenks24 (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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: Template talk:File copyright request


text:
Arc Infrastructure

Arc Infrastructure (previously known as Brookfield Rail and WestNet Rail) is a transport infrastructure manager and access provider in Western Australia with a long-term lease on the network from the Government of Western Australia. It operates approximately 5,500 km of standard, narrow and dual gauge rail infrastructure in the southern half of the state.

History
In December 2000, the State Government privatised Westrail, with the Australian Railroad Group, a 50/50 joint venture between United States rail operator Genesee & Wyoming and Australian rural services company Wesfarmers, the successful bidder. Included in the sale was a 49-year lease on the below rail infrastructure network. This part of the business was rebranded as WestNet Rail.

On 1 June 2006, Australian Railroad Group was sold with the above rail rolling stock and terminal assets passing to QR National, and the below rail infrastructure business to Babcock & Brown Infrastructure. Initially Babcock & Brown held a 51% shareholding, the remaining 49% being held by minority shareholders with Babcock & Brown having an option to increase its holding. In March 2008 Babcock & Brown increased its shareholding to 76%. It later took full ownership.

In late 2009, Babcock & Brown Infrastructure was renamed Prime Infrastructure and again by December 2010 to Brookfield Infrastructure Partners following Brookfield Asset Management's purchase of the business. In August 2011, WestNet Rail was rebranded as Brookfield Rail.

In 2017, Brookfield Rail relocated its headquarters from Welshpool to Perth Airport. In July 2017, the company was again rebranded as Arc Infrastructure.

Current operations
Arc Infrastructure has a lease until 2049 on 5500 km of rail infrastructure throughout the southern half of Western Australia, from Geraldton in the north, to Leonora and Kalgoorlie in the east, and south to Esperance, Albany and Bunbury.

It is responsible for maintaining the network and granting access to operators.

title: Arc Infrastructure


text:
Sefer Mitzvot Gadol

Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (ספר מצוות גדול; in english: "The Great Book of Commandments"; abbreviated:, "SeMaG") work of halakha by Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, containing an enumeration of the 613 commandments.

Description
The work was completed in 1247, and is a literary work that deals with the 365 negative commandments (mitzvot), and the 248 positive commandments, discussing each one of them separately, according to the Talmud and the decisions made by the rabbis. "SeMaG" also contains many non-legalistic moral teachings. The references in the "SeMaG" are ordered by section (negative and positive commandments alike) and there is a number for each commandment in every section of the book.

The arrangements and the presentation are strongly influenced by the discussions of Maimonides about the commandments, which are found in Sefer HaMitzvot and Mishneh Torah. Unlike Maimonides, Rabbi Moses ben Jacob presents long discussions of the different interpretations and legal opinions. The work also makes extensive use of other legal codes, especially the comments of Rashi and the Tosafists, normally favoring the Ashkenazi traditions over the opinion of Maimonides.

The traditional commentaries on the "SeMaG" include the "Tosefe SeMaG" by Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi (the Re'em), and "Ammude Shlomo" by Rabbi Solomon Luria (the Maharshal). Mitzvot Gadol is a modern commentary by Rabbi Avraham Aharon Price. The Sefer Mitzvot Katan ("SeMaK") by Rabbi Isaac ben Joseph of Corbeil, is a summary of the "SeMaG", including additional material about ethics and legends (aggadah).

The oldest known, complete manuscript from 1288 is now in Switzerland, in the largest private collection of Hebrew manuscripts, the Braginsky Collection. A document at about the same time can be found in the Bibliothèque nationale de France (ms. Hébr. 370).

title: Sefer Mitzvot Gadol


text:
My Band

"My Band" is a song by American hip hop group D12. It was released in March 2004 as the first single from their second album, D12 World (2004). The song is a parody of the false concept that Eminem is the lead singer of the "band" D12. The single became one of the group's most successful, reaching number two in the United Kingdom, number six in the United States, and number one in Australia, New Zealand, and Norway. "My Band" was the first song to top the revamped singles chart introduced in New Zealand in April 2004.

Content
The brief introduction summarizes the song's satirical message: that Eminem is the lead "singer" of the "band" and it makes everyone else in D12 jealous and looked down upon. In the chorus, he describes how girls have confidence in the group just because he is in it, even though they “don’t even know the name of [his] band”.

Eminem talks about his own popularity in the first verse and the conflict it creates within the group. He describes episodes such as female fans attempting to make sexual advances when meeting him offstage, and group member Kuniva trying to attack him with a knife when he claims that Jessica Alba is his "wife-to-be".

In the second verse, Swift wrestles the mic from Eminem and then describes some of the negative consequences of this propaganda-like media coverage on the rest of the D12's members, such as not recording with Pro Tools, being stuck driving a van while Eminem rides in a tour bus, getting their names mixed up ("I thought you were Kuniva"), and being provided a dressing room "smaller than a decimal". Kon Artis and Kuniva talk about this together in the third verse, with Eminem occasionally interjecting. The two find themselves unable to confront him.

Just like Swift, Proof complains about the propaganda in his solo part, implying that people who promote this perception know nothing about the group. (To back up his point, fans yell out "Where's Obie and Dre?", referring to rappers Obie Trice and Dr. Dre.) He also complains that Eminem gets "ninety and we only get ten percent" after explaining that they "ain't a band" because they "don't play instruments" (in response to a fan exclaiming "I love your band!").

In the fifth verse, Bizarre, after attacking Eminem who is at the time singing in a traditional boy band, attacks the media for focusing on Eminem when discussing and covering the group, and claims that he is actually the most popular member of the group. He also threatens to leave D12 on several occasions, claiming he will "start a group with The Real Roxanne".

After this fifth verse, there is a short hook by Eminem (sung in boy-band style with the other members singing backup vocals), and Bizarre follows by trying to sing the chorus, which results in laughter. After that, some members yell out random comments while the others sing the song's title repeatedly.

At the end of the song, Eminem sings in a Spanish-style accent about how his "salsa makes all the pretty girls want to dance and take off their underpants", then facetiously promoting his fictional next single "My Salsa" (a parody of Kelis' hit single "Milkshake"). The song then ends abruptly, followed by Eminem saying, "Hey, where'd everybody go?".

Parodies

 * 50 Cent's "In da Club" video. (Bizarre attempts to lose weight in the music video, similar to 50 Cent working out in the beginning of "In Da Club")
 * Backstreet Boys' "I Want It That Way" video. (The band are dressed in white in the music video and Eminem performs a typical boy-band style vamp)
 * Eminem's "Superman" and "Lose Yourself" videos. (Bizarre claims he is in the back of these videos)
 * Kelis's "Milkshake" (Eminem's "My Salsa")

Music video
The music video begins by showing the rest of D12 looking through the window of a door to find Eminem receiving a massage, which is similar to the song's preceding skit on the album, "Dude". It then cuts to shots of Eminem in a limousine while the others are forced to wait for a bus, and the whole song's context is picked up from there.

Later scenes include Bizarre attempting to get in shape (parodying the video for 50 Cent's "In Da Club"), Bizarre and Verne Troyer spoofing fellow Michiganders Kid Rock and Joe C., Bizarre in the background of Eminem's "Lose Yourself" and "Superman" music videos, the entire band performing a boy band-style song while dressed like *NSYNC, and a re-enactment of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" (with Bizarre as Janet and Eminem as Justin Timberlake).

At the MTV Video Music Awards in 2004, "My Band" (directed by Philip G. Atwell, co-directed by Eminem) was nominated for Video of the Year, Best Group Video, and Best Rap Video, but did not win in any of the categories. During their performance of the song at the 2004 MTV Movie Awards, Eminem mooned the audience. MTV originally planned to blur Eminem's bare bottom, but in light of their recent problems with the aforementioned "wardrobe malfunction" they instead decided to cut the mooning from the performance altogether. Pictures of Eminem's mooning have been spread across the internet.

In an uncensored version of the video, a topless woman appears next to Eminem and a topless woman dances on a pole.

Track listings
 UK CD1

UK CD2

Notes
 * $undefined$ signifies an additional producer.

title: My Band