text:
User talk:Willkm

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 16:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

cherwell valley
I appreciate your argument that the Cherwell Valley is not in SW England. I have included it on that template to make navigation easier, since it connects the GWML with the midlands. there is a lot a traffic that goes on the cherwell route, including freightliners - perhaps there are route clearance issues on the cheltenham route. I can easily remove it from the template if it is a problem. This also raises the question of where to put the Thames branchlines. They should probably go with the GWML, but again aren't technically in the SW. Perhaps "Great Western" zone would be a better description of the area covered? What do you think? Our Phellap 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. Just seemed a bit odd when I saw it! Yes, a Great Western "zone" would probably be better. I think something along the lines of BR regions would go well, although it would end up with some of them fairly big... What do you reckon? Willkm 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Victoria Line
Thanks for pointing that out. I managed to read the diff the wrong way round - it had previously been "southwest to northeast" which isn't really correct, and the revision I reverted had actually *fixed* that. Oops. I've put it back the way it should be and chastised myself suitably in the log message..

(And yeah, nice userboxes!) --Mpk 13:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow!
Great work on the TGV article! In case you don't know this, it's scheduled to appear on the main page in a few days time. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely! that's how I made up my username - both myself and my flatmate thought it was very amusing at the time. I originally created a throw away account on Kuro5hin, but ended up keeping it. Then when I transferred to Wikipedia, I brought the username with me :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on TGV
Well, I did not expect a vandalism/silly edit within 15 minutes on the apperance on the front page, though... although the person who made the edit may have done it in good faith — what he wrote is a literal translation of Train à Grande Vitesse, just a bit too literal ;-) Anyway, there will probably be quite a bit of work like this in the next 23.5 hours... Schutz 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Got it
Okay, gotcha. Let me try to reword that bit. Killdevil 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

TGV edits
I was endeavouring simply to make minor corrections to usage (redundant hyphens, omitted diacritical marks, omitted or redundant function words, misspellings, etc.). I have no idea why Service needs to be spelt with an uppercase S any more than I know why Hulk Hogan films need to be discussed, or why some pig needs to post obscene pictures there (Why pick on the TGV article, I wonder? Is the Barbra Streisand article getting to busy?) Anyway, I think the uppercase S was inadvertently reinstated as the result of an editing conflict. Sorry about that. I notice that you and one or two others have been relentlessly reëditing that page this evening (it is evening for me, anyway). I might question some of the edits (although not the vandalism reversion, of course) as they don't seem to change very much (for instance, I thought it was already quite clear that it was hard to read trackside signals the way it was worded when I edited it). But anyway... Kelisi 04:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

TGVweb to Wikipedia
That's excellent news; congratulations on this. I'm happy to help (although it may have to wait for a few days). As for the permission emails, I don't need them personaly, but you can look on Confirmation of permission for the right procedure to follow. Schutz 00:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure that if you have an email covering the whole website, that could do the job. Only important thing is not to forget to credit the source; maybe in the edit summary of the first edit (copy/paste the text, save with the right summary, and then edit), and, of course, on thep age itself (for example on the model if Template:FOLDOC).

Winchester College
In what way "wrong sort of house system"? Is it not, as the article explains, a case of: "Historically it was associated with established public schools, where a 'house' referred to a dormitory."? If it differs at Winchester, an explanation would be helpful, if you're in a position to provide one. Man vyi 16:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Lux facta est! Your explanation of the hybrid system at Winchester could usefully be added to the article, if you wouldn't mind doing it. Thanks! Meanwhile, I'll try to tweak boarding house and house system. Man vyi 16:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Circle Line
Hi. Do you have a cite for the claim about Circle Line trains being turned at Whitechapel to minimise tyre wear? I'd be surprised if this was really an issue, because as the C Stock is shared between the District, H&C and Circle an individual unit would get plenty of different duties which would spread the wear out anyway. From what I understand, individual unit diagrams are virtually never simply 'from depot in morning, round and round the circle line, stable in the evening'. Circle trains regularly become H&C trains and vice versa over the course of the traffic day. --Mpk 10:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Circle page on CULG mentions transferring stock between the Circle and the H&S service in the evenings. I guess this does make sense for trains going out of service in particular, as there's no way for an Outer Rail train on the Circle to get to Hammersmith without reversing anyway. So if you can make a Circle train into an H&C train, you get to both strengthen the H&C in the evenings and get the train back to Hammersmith in a more or less elegant manner. --Mpk 18:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Train operating company
This is currently undergoing a merge proposal. Simply south 16:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FA Review
TGV has been nominated for FA review. As I see you're one of the main editors, I think you should be notified. Noble Story (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TGV
Great work on many of the TGV articles... I was expecting a wasteland on EN which needed to be translated but a lot of it is here already. gren グレン 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Willkm


text: User talk:129.72.75.159

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

title: User talk:129.72.75.159


text:
Isla

Isla or ISLA may refer to:

Organizations

 * International Securities Lending Association, a trade association
 * International School of Los Angeles
 * International Bilingual School, later named International School of Los Angeles

People

 * Isla (given name)
 * Víctor Isla, Peruvian politician and a Congressman representing Loreto for the 2006–2011 term
 * Mauricio Isla, Chilean football player

Music

 * Isla (Portico Quartet album), a 2009 album by Portico Quartet

Places

 * Isla, Queensland, a locality in the Shire of Banana, Australia
 * Mt. Izla, location of ancient Christian monasteries, on the border between Turkey and Syria
 * Isla (Cantabria), a village in the Spanish region of Cantabria
 * River Isla, Perthshire, a tributary of the River Tay in Perthshire, Scotland; flows through Glen Isla and Strathmore
 * River Isla, Moray a tributary of the River Deveron in North-East Scotland; flows through Keith in Banffshire
 * Senglea, Isla (Senglea), a fortified city in the east of Malta, mainly in the Grand Harbour area
 * Isla, Texas, an unincorporated community in the United States
 * Isla, Valenzuela, a settlement in the Philippines
 * Isla, Veracruz, a town in Mexico
 * Isla, a village in Hodoșa Commune, Mureș County, Romania

title: Isla


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teothuauci

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Teothuauci
This one had me thinking "cute coincidence" for a second. Then it had me thinking - wait, no. It's a blatant hoax - TEOTWAWKI, pronounced pretty much "teothuauci", is a popular shorthand for "the end of the world as we know it" in some circles. Part of a set with Cateclixmicli and X'acti. No sign of actually being valid. Delete Shimgray 16:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * DeleteNo other reference to these three gods anywhere I can find. Stlemur 17:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Joke. Cute, but it must go. -- BD2412 talk 19:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN the set. --Carnildo 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ho ho in the bin. Alf 23:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete apparent hoax. Nothing in Encyclopedia Mythica. -- Etacar11   23:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Teotihuacan. Proto t c 10:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as above. --Agamemnon2 15:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Wacław

Wacław is a Polish masculine given name. It is a borrowing of, Latinized as Wenceslaus.

For etymology and cognates in other languages, see Wenceslaus.

It may refer to:
 * Wacław Cimochowski (1912–1982), Polish philologist
 * Wacław Gajewski (1911–1997), Polish geneticist
 * Wacław Hański (1782–1841), Polish nobleman
 * Wacław Kiełtyka (born 1981), Polish musician
 * Wacław Kopisto (1911–1993), Polish Army officer
 * Wacław Kuchar (1897–1981), Polish athlete
 * Wacław Leszczyński (1605–1666), Primate of Poland
 * Wacław Maciejowski (1792–1883), Polish historian
 * Wacław Micuta (1915–2008), Polish economist
 * Wacław Seweryn Rzewuski (1784–1831), Polish explorer, poet and orientalist
 * Wacław Sieroszewski (1858–1945), Polish writer
 * Wacław Sierpiński (1882–1969), Polish mathematician
 * Wacław Szybalski (1921–2020), Polish-American medical researcher, geneticist
 * Wacław Szymanowski (1859–1930), Polish sculptor and painter
 * Wacław of Szamotuły (c. 1520 – c. 1560), Polish composer
 * Wacław Zagórski (1909–1982), Polish lawyer
 * Wacław Michał Zaleski (1799–1849), Polish poet and writer
 * Wacław Zalewski (1917–2016), Polish engineer
 * Wacław Zawadowski (1891–1982), Polish painter

Other forms of Wenceslaus exist natively in Polish, but only as a surname, including Wącław, Węcław, and Więcław, as well as their respective phonetic spellings Woncław, Wencław, and Wiencław.

title: Wacław


text:
Wenzel

Wenzel is a male given name (long version Wenzeslaus) as the German and Old English form of the Czech given name Václav or Venceslav, meaning "praised with glory". Variations are Вячеслав (Ukrainian and Russian), Vencel (Hungarian), Wacław, Więcław, Wiesław (Polish), Venceslas/Wenceslas (French), Venceslao (Italian), Venceslau (Portuguese), Wenceslao (Spanish).

Given name

 * Wenzel Jamnitzer (ca. 1507–1585), Austrian-German etcher and goldsmith
 * Wenzel, Archduke of Austria (1561–1578), Austrian prince and Grand Prior of the Order of Malta
 * Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz (1711–1794), Austrian statesman
 * Wenzel Raimund Birck (1718–1763), Austrian composer
 * Wenzel Parler (1333–1399), German-Bohemian architect
 * Wenzel Pichl (1741–1805), Czech composer
 * Wenzel Thomas Matiegka (1773–1830), Bohemian composer
 * Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (1773–1859), German-Austrian politician and statesman
 * Wolfgang Wenzel von Haffner (1806–1892), Norwegian Minister of the Navy
 * Wenzel Storch (born 1961), German film director and producer
 * Josef Wenzel, Prince of Liechtenstein (1696–1772), prince of Liechtenstein
 * Prince Joseph Wenzel of Liechtenstein (born 1995), oldest child of Prince Alois of Liechtenstein and his wife Princess Sophie of Bavaria, Duchess in Bavaria
 * Franz Wenzel, Graf von Kaunitz-Rietberg, (1742-1825), Austrian general, son of Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz
 * Wenzel Johann Tomaschek (1774-1850), Bohemian composer

Surname

 * Andreas Wenzel (born 1958), former Alpine skier from Liechtenstein
 * Brian Wenzel (1929–2024), Australian character actor
 * Carl Friedrich Wenzel (ca. 1740-1793), German chemist and metallurgist
 * David Wenzel (born 1950), American illustrator and children's book artist
 * Eberhard Wenzel (1950–2001), German-born public health researcher
 * Hanni Wenzel (born 1956), German-born alpine skier from Liechtenstein
 * Hans-Georg Wenzel (1949–1999), geodesist, geophysicist and university lecturer
 * Joan Wenzel (born 1953), Canadian middle-distance runner
 * Johann Wenzel (1902–1969), GRU spy in WWII Germany, radio specialist
 * Joseph W. Wenzel (1940–2021), American argumentation and rhetorical scholar
 * Leopold Wenzel or Léopold de Wenzel (1847–1923), Italian conductor and composer
 * Rene Wenzel, American cycling coach
 * Sally Wenzel, American pulmonologist

title: Wenzel


text:
Genaro David Góngora

Genaro David Góngora Pimentel (born September 8, 1937, in Chihuahua, Chih.) is a Mexican jurist who was a member of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) from 1995 to 2009 and served as its President (Chief Justice) from 1999 to 2003.

Góngora Pimentel studied law at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. and obtained a doctorate at the same university.

President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León nominated him as a Minister of the Supreme Court (Associate Justice). Góngora Pimentel was confirmed by the Senate on January 26, 1995.

Education
He attended primary and secondary schools in Ensenada, Baja California, and Hermosillo, Sonora. On October 1, 1963, he received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the Universidad Nacional  Autónoma with the Thesis “From the Maritime Agency”. He obtained a Doctorate degree in law from the same university on December 5, 2006, by submitting the Thesis “The Jurisdictional Vote”.

Professional experience

 * “Secretario de Estudio y Cuenta”, commissioned to the Supreme Court of Justice on January 2. 1969.
 * District Judge in Administrative Matters in Mexico City, from 1972 to 1978.
 * Magistrate in the Collegiate Tribunal of the Fifth Circuit residing in Hermosillo, Sonora, from May to July, 1978.
 * Magistrate in the Third Collegiate Tribunal on Civil Matters and the Third Collegiate Tribunal on Administrative Matters, both from the First Circuit, from 1978 to 1995.
 * Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. Appointed by the Senate of the Republic on January 26, 1995, for a tenure in office of 15 years.
 * President of the Segunda Sala (Second Chamber, labor and administrative matters) of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, from January, 1996 to December, 1997.
 * Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and of The Federal Judicature Council (Federal Judiciary Council), elected from January 4, 1999, to December 31, 2002.
 * Associate Justice of the Segunda Sala (Second Chamber) of The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation.

Other posts

 * “Secretario B de Acuerdos at Oficina de Acuerdos” of the Fiscal Tribunal of the Federation, from 1964 to 1969.
 * Secretario General de Acuerdos in the same Tribunal, 1966.
 * Legal Advisor of the General Direction of Merchant Navy, 1968 to 1969.
 * Vocal Secretary of the National Port Coordination Committee, 1971.

Teaching experience
For more than 30 years, he has been a professor of Maritime, Merchant and Amparo Law in the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, in Mexico City. Professor of Fiscal Law, at the Anáhuac University, he has taught at the Judicial Specialization Institute, of the Judicial Power of the Federation.

Publications

 * “Introduction to the Study of Amparo Trial”, 10th Edition, 2005.
 * “The Suspension in Administrative Matters”, 9th Edition, 2005.
 * “The Rights We Have: The Justice We Expect”, 2000.
 * “Evolution of Kidnapping in Mexico and the Decisions of the Judicial Power of the Federation in the Matter”, 2nd Edition, 2005.
 * “The Veto on the Federation’s Budget of Expenditure”, available since December 2005.

He has published in collaboration with Dr. Acosta Romero:
 * “Political Constitution of the United States of Mexico; Doctrine, Legislation and Jurisprudence.”
 * “Amparo Law; Legislation, Jurisprudence and Doctrine”
 * “Federal Code of Civil Procedures. Organic Law of the Judicial Federal Power of the Federation. Legislation, Jurisprudence and Doctrine.”

Coauthor with Magistrate María Guadalupe Saucedo Zavala, of the following works;
 * “Suspension of the Claimed Act. Alphabetical Compilation of Jurisprudential Thesis and Precedents.” 7th Edition, 2005
 * “Amparo Law. Jurisprudential Doctrine”, in two Tomes and four Volumes, 6th Edition, 2001. Updated Tome I, First and Second Part, 7th Edition, 2004

Invited by the XLVI Legislature to integrate comments, background and path of the Constitutional Articles. “The Mexican People’s Rights. Mexico throughout its Constitutions”

Has participated in the making of the Mexican Juridical Dictionary on Merchant Law, edited by UNAM's Institute of Juridical Investigation, since 1981.

Due to the installation of a Circle of Juridical Studies “Genaro Góngora Pimentel”, has contributed to the compilation of a series of published analysis, such as: “The Juridical Work and the Judicature”.

Distinctions

 * The H. Technical Council of UNAM appointed him recipient of the Medal of the Teaching Merit “Prima de Leyes Instituta” in 1992.
 * The National Association of Lawyers, member of L’Union Internationale Des Avocats, Inter American Bar Association and Unión Iberoamericana de Abogados awarded him with “The Great Cross of Judicial Merit”, given to him by the President of the Republic on July 13, 1992.
 * The Colegio de Abogados “Foro de México” A. C. honoured him with “Presea al Mérito Judicial” conferred by the President of the Republic on July 12, 1994.
 * The Postgraduate Studies Division from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México bestowed on him the “Juridical Academic Recognition: Ignacio L. Vallarta” in 1995.
 * The LVII Legislature gave him the award Belisario Domínguez award in October, 1999.
 * The Romanian Government distinguished him with the “Appointment of the Order of the Star of Romania in the grade of Grand Cross” on November 19, 2001.
 * The Supreme Court of Nicaragua paid homage for his valuable contribution to the strengthening of ties between the Judicial Powers in Mexico and Nicaragua in 2002.
 * He was granted a degree of Doctor Honoris Causa for his exceptional achievements as a Teacher, Juridical Researcher and as a consolidator of the Federal Judicial Power in Mexico by Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco on April 11, 2002.
 * The High of Justice in Puebla, awarded him with the Golden Medal “Abogado José María Lafragua Ibarra” in recognition to his distinguished professional path and his patriotic and continuous effort in favor of Justice on July 5, 2002.
 * The Mayor of the City of Antigua Guatemala declared him “Distinguished Visitor” on August 2, 2002.
 * He inaugurated the library “Justice Genaro David Góngora Pimentel” in “Escuela de Municipalistas” in Guanajuato, Guanajuato, on October 10, 2002.
 * The Institute of Juridical Science of UNAM Alumni Campus Aragón A.C. granted him the “Tepantlato Award” at the Alcazar of Chapultepec Castle, on its XIII Anniversary on October 30, 2002.
 * The Government of the Kingdom of Spain recognized him with the “Gran Cruz” of the Order of Isabel la Católica on November 8, 2002.
 * Barra Queretana Colegio de Abogados A.C. acknowledged his magnificent dissertation of  “Una Inquietud y Tres Historias” on April 2, 2003.
 * The Circle of Juridical Studies “Genaro David Góngora Pimentel” was created and its members took oath in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, on June 16, 2004.
 * Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Nuevo León, through its Law and Criminology Faculty,  acknowledged him for the presentation of his work: ““Evolution of Kidnapping in Mexico and the Decisions of the Judicial Power of the Federation in the Matter” on August 18, 2004.
 * He was appointed as an honorary member of “Liga Mundial de Abogados Ambientalistas A.C.” and awarded with the Venera decoration “IUS AMBIENS” on October 6, 2004.
 * Associate Justice Genaro David Góngora Pimentel was recognized for his 35-year service to the Judicial Power of the Federation on November 23, 2004.
 * The National Institute of the Author's Copyright and the Law Faculty of the UNAM, honoured him with a distinction due to the National Program of Recognition to Professors of Public Universities with written works on March 11, 2005.
 * Universidad Contemporánea of the City of Querétaro installed the Chapter of the Fraternity Phi Delta Phi Góngora Pimentel Inn, on April 27, 2005.
 * The Revolutionary Confederation of Workers and Peasants awarded him for “Impartición de Justicia” merits on July 12, 2005.
 * Colegio de Abogados “Genaro David Góngora Pimentel” Playas de Rosarito A.C. appointed him as the First Honorary Member for his outstanding contribution to Justice in the Nation and therefore maintaining a State based on the Rule of Law, on September 8, 2005.
 * The High Tribunal of the State of Chihuahua, on the occasion of its 180 Anniversary, honored him for his outstanding and brilliant juridical path, and filling Chihuahua State with pride, on November 7, 2005.

title: Genaro David Góngora


text:
Mr. America (contest)

The Mr. America contest is a bodybuilding competition started by the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU). It was first held on July 4, 1939, and the winner was named "America's Best Built Man". In 1940 this was changed to what is now known as the Mr. America contest. In the mid-1940s, Joe and Ben Weider started the IFBB as an alternative to the AAU. They held their opposing contest, the IFBB Mr. America, in 1949 and then from 1959 through 1977. Rights to the Mr. America name have been sold several times after AAU discontinued holding the contests in 1999.

History
The AAU voted to discontinue holding bodybuilding competitions in 1999.

In 2004, the World Bodybuilding & Fitness Association (WBFA) announced they had acquired the rights to the Mr. America name and would resume running contests under that banner.

In 2006 Bob Bonham acquired the rights and from 2011 through 2013 held the Mr America contest under the sanction of the INBF (International Natural Bodybuilding Federation), which is the amateur division of the WNBF (World Natural Bodybuilding Federation). The contests were drug tested under strict WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) guidelines using U.S. Olympic laboratory testing.

In 2015, rights to Mr. America were acquired by Bruce Ebel, and the contest's annual event cycle resumed via MRA Promotions. Qualifying events in spring were sponsored by the National Gym Association (NGA), Nspire Sports League (NSL), and Ultimate Fitness Events (UFE). The Mr. America Expo and contest was to have been held in Baltimore in October 2017.

The contest resumed in 2020 (with no specific organization affiliation), promoted by Marc Tauriello of Mr America LLC. The Mr. America Sports Festival & Expo is held in October in Atlantic City, New Jersey, and broadcast on the CBS Sports Network.

title: Mr. America (contest)


text:
History of British nationality law

This article concerns the history of British nationality law.

Early English and British nationality law
British nationality law has its origins in medieval England. There has always been a distinction in English law between the subjects of the monarch and aliens: the monarch's subjects owed him allegiance, and included those born in his dominions (natural-born subjects) and those who later gave him their allegiance (naturalised subjects or denizens).

A summary of early English common law is provided by Sir William Blackstone, who wrote about the law in 1765–1769. Natural-born subjects were originally those born within the dominion of the crown (jus soli). Blackstone describes how various statutes extended the rights of the children of subjects born abroad, until "all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain."

In 1603 the crowns of England and Scotland were united in the individual of James VI and I, in what is known as the Union of the Crowns. In 1701, following some disagreement about the rules of succession to the crown, the English parliament passed the Alien Act 1705 (3 & 4 Ann. c. 6), providing that Scottish nationals would have alien status in the realm of England. However, this was superseded by the Act of Union 1707, which united the realms of England and Scotland.

When the British Empire came into existence, the reach of the crown expanded. British subjects included not only persons within the United Kingdom but also those throughout the British Empire. This included both the more dependent colonies such as Jamaica, Hong Kong and Fiji, as well as the self-governing colonies and dominions, including the Australian colonies, New Zealand, South Africa, Canada and Newfoundland.

Individuals born in the dominion were citizens regardless of the status of their parents: children born to visitors or foreigners acquired citizenship (see Jus soli). This reflects the rationale of natural-born citizenship: that citizenship was acquired because British-born subjects would have a 'natural allegiance' to the Crown as a 'debt of gratitude' to the Crown for protecting them through infancy. Therefore, citizenship by birth was perpetual and could not be, at common law, removed or revoked regardless of residency.

By the same reasoning, an 'alien', or foreign-born resident, was seen as unable to revoke their relationship with their place of birth. Therefore, at English common law foreign-born individuals could not become citizens through any procedure or ceremony. Some exceptions to this general principle existed in the common law, to recognise the situation of children born on foreign soil to English (or British after the Act of Union 1707) subjects. The earliest exception was the children of the king's ambassadors, who became subjects of the king even if not born in England. A later, broader, exception was enacted by the Status of Children Born Abroad Act 1350 (25 Edw. 3. Stat. 1) to allow children born abroad to two parents who were subjects to be subjects (extended to Scots born after the union of the crowns by Calvin's Case). Later, the British Nationality Act 1772 (13 Geo. 3. c. 21) made general provision allowing natural-born allegiance (citizenship) to be assumed if the father alone were British. Generally then, there was no process by which a 'foreigner' not of British parents could become a British citizen. However, two procedures existed by which the individual could become a British subject with some of the rights of citizenship. Firstly, 'naturalisation' granted all the legal rights of citizenship and required an act of parliament be passed. Alternatively, denization allowed a person to gain the rights of citizenship other than political rights. Denization was granted by letters patent, and was granted by the monarch as an exercise of royal prerogative.

Denization was therefore an exercise of executive power, whereas naturalisation was an exercise of legislative power. An example of the latter is the granting of English nationality to the Electress Sophia of Hanover, the heir to the throne under the Act of Settlement 1701 (12 & 13 Will. 3. c. 2). Naturalisation occurred by the passing of the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (4 & 5 Ann. c. 16). This act granted English nationality to the electress and to the Protestant "issue of her body", allowing all her future descendants a claim to English nationality. In 1957 Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover successfully claimed citizenship of the UK and Colonies under this act. Although the act was repealed from 1 January 1949 by the British Nationality Act 1948, some descendants can still claim citizenship based on their parent's rights under the law as it existed prior to 1949. However, the Home Office believes that the act does not generally give claimants a right of abode in the United Kingdom. Successful claims will normally be granted to only those with British Overseas Citizen status unless entitled to a right of abode in the UK under the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) as in force prior to 1983.

Denization remained the usual form by which foreign-born subjects swore allegiance to the Crown until general naturalisation acts were passed. Naturalisation Acts were passed in 1844, 1847 and 1870. The  (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14) preserved the process of denization. However, by introducing administrative procedures for naturalising non-British subjects naturalisation became the preferred process.

The Naturalization Act 1870 also introduced the concept of renunciation of British nationality, and provided for the first time that British women who married foreign men should lose their British nationality. This was a radical break from the common law doctrine that citizenship could not be removed, renounced, or revoked.

The loss of nationality at marriage was changed with the adoption of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 17). This codified for the first time the law relating to British nationality. However, it did not mark a major change in the substantive content of the law. This was to wait until 1948.

British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914
The British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. 5. c. 17) came into force on 1 January 1915. British subject status was acquired as follows:

 * birth within His Majesty's dominions
 * naturalisation in the United Kingdom or a part of His Majesty's dominions which had adopted Imperial naturalisation criteria
 * descent through the legitimate male line (child born outside His Majesty's dominions to a British subject father). This was limited to one generation although further legislation in 1922 allowed subsequent generations born overseas to be registered as British subjects within one year of birth.
 * foreign women who married British subject men
 * former British subjects who had lost British subject status on marriage or through a parent's loss of status could resume it in specific circumstances (e.g. if a woman became widowed, or children immediately upon turning 21).

British subject status was normally lost by:
 * naturalisation in a foreign state
 * in the case of a woman, upon marriage to a foreign man. Prior to 1933, British subject status was lost even if the woman did not acquire her husband's nationality.
 * a child of a father who lost British subject status, provided the child also had the father's new nationality.
 * renunciation.

British Nationality Act 1948
The Commonwealth Heads of Government decided in 1948 to embark on a major change in the law of nationality throughout the Commonwealth, following Canada's decision to enact its own citizenship law in 1946. Until then all Commonwealth countries, with the exception of the Irish Free State (see Irish nationality law), had a single nationality status: British subject status. It was decided at that conference that the United Kingdom and the self-governing dominions would each adopt separate national citizenships, but retain the common status of British subject.

The British Nationality Act 1948 (11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 56) marked the first time that married British women gained independent nationality, regardless of the citizenship of their spouses. It provided for a new status of Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC), consisting of all those British subjects who had a close relationship (either through birth or descent) with the United Kingdom and its remaining colonies. Each other Commonwealth country did likewise, and also established its own citizenship (with the exception of Newfoundland which became part of Canada on 1 April 1949, Newfoundlanders hence becoming Canadian citizens).

The Act also provided that British subjects could be known by the alternative title Commonwealth citizen.

It was originally envisaged that all British subjects would get one (or more) of the national citizenships being drawn up under the Act, and that the remainder would be absorbed as CUKCs by the British Government. Until they acquired one or other of the national citizenships, these people continued to be British subjects without citizenship. However, some British subjects never became citizens of any Commonwealth country.

Because the nationality laws of India and Pakistan did not provide for citizenship for everyone who was born in their countries, the British Government refused to "declare" their nationality laws for the purposes of the Act, and therefore those British subjects from these countries who did not become Indian or Pakistani citizens were never absorbed as CUKCs by the British Government. They remained British subjects without citizenship.

Due to the imminent withdrawal of the Republic of Ireland from the Commonwealth (which took effect 18 April 1949), special arrangements were made in s.2 of the Act to allow British subjects from Ireland to apply to continue to hold British subject status independently of the citizenship of any Commonwealth country.

Until 1983 the status of British subjects without citizenship was not affected by the acquisition of the citizenship of a non-Commonwealth country.

Acquisition of Citizenship of the UK and Colonies
Under the 1948 Act, CUKC status was acquired by:

 * birth in the UK or a colony (which does not include birth in the Dominions or children of 'enemy aliens' and diplomats). The immigration status of the parents was irrelevant.
 * naturalisation or registration in the UK or a colony or protectorate
 * legitimate descent from a CUKC father for children born elsewhere. Only the first generation acquired British nationality automatically.  Second and subsequent generations could do so only if born outside the Commonwealth (or Ireland) and registered within 12 months of birth or if the father was in Crown Service.
 * incorporation of territory (no persons ever acquired CUKC this way from 1949)
 * declaration
 * marriage

Provisions for acquisition of CUKC by adoption were not included in the 1948 Act itself but were added soon after.

Requirements for Naturalisation or Registration
Citizens of Commonwealth countries, British subjects and Irish citizens were entitled to register as citizens of the UK and Colonies after one year's residence in the UK & Colonies. This period was increased to five years in 1973.

Other persons were required to apply for naturalisation after five years residence.

Citizenship by Descent
Prior to 1983, as a general rule, British nationality could be transmitted from only the father, and parents were required to be married.

Children born in Commonwealth countries or the Republic of Ireland could not normally access British nationality if the father was British by descent.

Those born in non-Commonwealth countries of second and subsequent generations born overseas could be registered as British within 12 months of birth. However, many such children did not acquire a Right of Abode in the UK before 1983 and hence became British Overseas citizens in 1983 rather than British citizens.

In the face of various concerns over gender equality, human rights, and treaty obligations, Parliament moved to act on these situations.

On 8 February 1979 the Home Office announced that overseas-born children of British mothers would generally be eligible for registration as UK citizens provided application was made before the child reached age 18. Many eligible children were not registered before their 18th birthday due to the fact this policy concession was poorly publicised. Hence it was effectively reintroduced by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for those aged under 18 on the date of the original announcement, with the law adding a new section 4C to the British Nationality Act 1981.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 then expanded the earliest date of birth covered from 1961 to 1 January 1949, and elaborated in "a dense and at times impenetrable piece of drafting" on the section's approach, while also covering numerous additional and less common situations, and adding a good character requirement.

Registration through this method is performed with Form UKM. After approval, the registrant must attend a citizenship ceremony. Since 2010, there is no longer an application fee (of £540). Applicants do however still have to pay £80 for the citizenship ceremony.

From 6 April 2015, a child born out of wedlock before 1 July 2006 to a British father is entitled to register as a British citizen by descent under the Immigration Act 2014 using form UKF. Such child must also meet character requirements, pay relevant processing fees and attend a citizenship ceremony. However, if the applicant has a claim to register as a British citizen under other clauses of the British Nationality Act 1981, or has already acquired British citizenship after being legitimised, the application will be refused.

Those with permanent resident status in the UK, or entitled to Right of Abode, may instead prefer to seek naturalisation as a British citizen which gives transmissible British citizenship otherwise than by descent.

Citizenship by Declaration
A person who was a British Subject on 31 December 1948, of United Kingdom & Colonies descent in the male line, and was resident in the UK & Colonies (or intending to be so resident) was entitled to acquire CUKC by declaration under s12(6) of the Act. The deadline for this was originally 31 December 1949, but was extended to 31 December 1962 by the British Nationality Act 1958.

Citizenship by Marriage
Women married to CUKCs had the right to register as CUKCs under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act.

Citizenship by Adoption
Before 1950 there was generally no provision to acquire British citizenship by adoption:

 * between 1 January 1950 and 31 December 1982, a person adopted in the UK by a citizen of the UK & Colonies (CUKC) acquired CUKC automatically if the adopter, or in the case of a joint adoption, the male adopter, was a CUKC.
 * children adopted in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man on or after 1 April 1959 acquired CUKC on the same basis as adoptees in the UK on 16 July 1964, or the date of the adoption order, if later.

In general a person acquiring CUKC by virtue of adoption in the UK, Channel Islands or Isle of Man, became a British citizen on 1 January 1983.

Ireland Act 1949
The Ireland Act 1949 clarified the citizenship status of the British subjects and citizens and former subjects on the Republic of Ireland, and the application of the British Nationality Act 1948 to people born there.

In addition, under section 5 of the act, a person who was born in the territory of the future Republic of Ireland as a British subject, but who did not receive Irish citizenship under the Ireland Act's interpretation of either the 1922 Irish constitution or the 1935 Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act (because he or she was no longer domiciled in the Republic on the day the constitution came into force and was not permanently resident there on the day of the 1935 law's enactment and was not otherwise registered as an Irish citizen) was deemed to be a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

As such, the act has important implications for many of those emigrants who left Ireland before 1922 and some of their descendants in the Irish diaspora, some of whom may both be registrable for Irish citizenship and have a claim to British citizenship, through either automatic citizenship or citizenship by registration. In some cases, their descendants may have a claim to British citizenship when the right to Irish citizenship has been lost because of the failure of previous generations to register births at the local Irish consulate.

Independence Acts
Many colonies became independent between 1949 and 1983. Under the independence legislation passed in the United Kingdom, a person connected with a particular colony generally lost CUKC on a specified date (which was normally that particular colony's date of attaining independence) if:

 * they had acquired, or would acquire, citizenship of that country upon or after independence; and
 * they did not have specified bloodline connections to the UK itself or a place which remained a colony (e.g., having a parent or a grandparent born in the UK or a place that remained a colony)

Therefore, it was possible for CUKCs to lose the status even if they had migrated to the UK and acquired the right of abode. Only through naturalisation or registration could they regain CUKC (and the right of abode in some cases).

Specific exceptions to the loss of CUKC on independence included:

 * persons from the Malayan states of Penang and Malacca who, because of the wording of Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957, did not lose CUKC at independence on 31 August 1957, as the law only provided for "the Malay States" for nationality purposes, whereas Penang and Malacca, at the time, were parts of the Straits Settlement. These persons, together with those born between 31 August 1957 and 31 December 1982 with a CUKC father, form the largest group of British Overseas citizens today. Most also hold Malaysian citizenship.
 * CUKCs connected with South Yemen normally lost their CUKC status on 14 August 1968. However, those ordinarily residing in the UK, a colony or another protectorate on or before that date were exempted from the loss.
 * CUKCs from Cyprus retained CUKC if habitually resident elsewhere in the Commonwealth (except Cyprus) immediately before 16 August 1960. These people would become British Overseas Citizens after 1983 if they did not acquire the right of abode.
 * In 1981 the Independence Acts dealing with Belize and Antigua/Barbuda exempted persons who had acquired a Right of abode in the UK from loss of CUKC. Such persons would have become British citizens in 1983 due to their Right of abode status.

The only British dependent territory that gained independence after 1982 is Saint Kitts and Nevis, which became an independent Commonwealth country on 19 September 1983. British Dependent Territories citizenship was withdrawn unless there was a connection with a remaining dependent territory. Those that had acquired British citizenship before independence and became also Saint Kitts and Nevis citizens upon independence, however, would no longer lose their British citizenship.

In some cases (Singapore and the Federation of Malaya), citizenship statuses were created before independence was achieved. This resulted in unusual endorsements like "British subject: citizen of the State of Singapore" in British passports. Indeed, treaties signed by the United Kingdom around this time reveal the existence of at least the following citizenship statuses:
 * British Subject
 * British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies
 * British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonies
 * British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom, Associated States and Colonies
 * British Subject, Citizen of the State of Singapore
 * British Subject, Citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland

British Nationality Acts of 1958, 1964 and 1965
British Nationality Acts were passed in 1958, 1964 (twice) and 1965:

 * The British Nationality Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 10) legislation dealt with Rhodesia, Ghana independence and reinstating temporarily some lapsed transitional registration entitlements
 * The British Nationality Act 1964 (c. 22) provided for resumption of CUKC where it was renounced to obtain another Commonwealth citizenship. It was no longer possible for a renunciation of CUKC to take effect if the person did not have another nationality.
 * The British Nationality (No. 2) Act 1964 (c. 54) provided for British mothers to transmit CUKC status in cases of statelessness of an overseas born child. It also repealed section 20(4) of the 1948 legislation which allowed naturalised CUKCs resident for more than seven years outside the UK & Colonies to be deprived of CUKC in certain circumstances.
 * The British Nationality Act 1965 (c. 34) made provision for women married to British subjects without citizenship to acquire British subject status by registration

Commonwealth Immigrants Acts
Until the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, all Commonwealth citizens could enter and stay in the United Kingdom without any restriction. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 made Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) whose passports were not directly issued by the United Kingdom Government (i.e. passports issued by the Governor of a colony or by the Commander of a British protectorate) subject to immigration control. Those with passports issued at a British High Commission in an independent Commonwealth country or British Consulate remained free from immigration control.

The 1962 Act also increased the residence period for Commonwealth citizens (plus British subjects and Irish citizens) applying for registration as Citizens of the UK and Colonies from one year to five years.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 sharpened the distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKCs) who had close ties with the United Kingdom and were free to enter, and those citizens who had no such ties and were therefore subject to immigration control. Particularly in the newly independent Commonwealth countries of East Africa, the result was that there were now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had no right of residence anywhere.

Immigration Act 1971
The Immigration Act 1971 developed this distinction by creating the concept of patriality or right of abode. CUKCs and other Commonwealth citizens had the right of abode in the UK only if they, their husband (if female), their parents, or their grandparents were connected to the United Kingdom and Islands (the UK, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man). This placed the UK in the rare position of denying some of its nationals entry into their country of nationality. (One consequence of this has been the inability of the United Kingdom to ratify the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right of abode for nationals, a right which is widely recognised in international law.)

Prior to 1983. the following people had the right of abode under the Act:

 * A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was born, adopted, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom.
 * A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was born to, or legally adopted by, a parent who, at the time of the birth or adoption, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born, adopted, naturalised or registered in the United Kingdom.
 * A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was born to, or legally adopted by, a parent who, at the time of the birth, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That parent must have a parent who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom.
 * A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who by 1 January 1983 had been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more (all conditions of stay must have been removed prior to the end of the 5-year period).
 * A Commonwealth citizen who was born to, or legally adopted by, a parent who, at the time of the birth or adoption, was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth in the United Kingdom.
 * A female Commonwealth citizen or citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was, or had been, the wife of a man with the right of abode.
 * A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was registered in an independent Commonwealth country by the British High Commissioner.

The Act did not specifically mention the status of former CUKCs who were holding right of abode in the UK and who lost their CUKC status solely because their own country's independence, although it was implied that if the person had no claim to right of abode as a Commonwealth citizen, then these persons would no longer have right of abode unless they have reacquired their CUKC status.

The following people did not have the right of abode simply by virtue of registration as a CUKC (but could hold it through United Kingdom descent or residence, or if a woman, marriage to a man with Right of Abode):
 * A woman who was registered under section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948 on or after 28 October 1971, unless she got married before that date and her husband has the right of abode.
 * A minor child who was registered under section 7 of the British Nationality Act 1948 in an independent Commonwealth country by the British High Commissioner on or after 28 October 1971.

The reason for these limitations is that under the 1948 Act, High Commissioners in independent Commonwealth nations had the right to register persons as CUKC. This was treated for the purpose of the 1971 Act as "registration in the United Kingdom" and hence without the special limitations on Right of Abode, that status would have been held by some CUKCs with no other qualifying ties to the United Kingdom.

The most notable group over whom control was sought were the Ugandan Indians who were expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin in 1972. As CUKCs who had passports issued by a British High Commissioner they were arriving in the United Kingdom in large numbers. A number of 'resettlement' options were looked at, including settling Indians on a suitable island in the dependent territories such as the Falkland Islands or Solomon Islands. Lord Lester of Herne Hill, QC, has written a detailed paper, "East African Asians versus The United Kingdom: The Inside Story", setting out the difficulties faced by the group.

However, the concept of patriality was recognised as only a temporary solution, so the British government embarked on a major reform of the law, resulting in the British Nationality Act 1981.

British Nationality Act 1981
The British Nationality Act 1981 abolished the status of CUKC, and replaced it with three new categories of citizenship on 1 January 1983:
 * British citizenship,
 * British Dependent Territories citizenship (BDTC), which was renamed British Overseas Territories citizenship (BOTC) by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 (see below) and
 * British Overseas citizenship (BOC).

British Citizens are those former CUKCs who had a close relation with the United Kingdom and Islands (i.e. those who possessed right of abode under the Immigration Act 1971); BOTCs are those former CUKCs with a close relationship with one of the remaining colonies, renamed Overseas Territories; while BOCs are those former CUKCs who did not qualify for either British citizenship or British Dependent Territories citizenship.

The law distinguishes between British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen by descent and those who hold those statuses otherwise than by descent. Citizens by descent cannot automatically pass on British nationality to a child born outside the United Kingdom or its Overseas Territories (though in some situations the child can be registered as a citizen).

British Overseas citizens cannot generally pass on British Overseas citizenship, except in limited cases to avoid statelessness or other hardship.

It is possible to hold more than one of these citizenships simultaneously. In fact, since the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to all the Overseas Territories (except the Cyprus Sovereign Base Areas), most British overseas territories citizens also hold British citizenship. Additionally, a British Overseas citizen who acquires British citizenship will not lose British Overseas citizenship, although there is generally no added benefit from retaining this status.

Those Commonwealth citizens and British subject already entitled to Right of Abode under the Immigration Act 1971 retained this status provided they did not cease to be Commonwealth citizens or British subjects after 1983. However, countries that joined the Commonwealth after 1 January 1983 are exempt from this scheme. These are South Africa, Pakistan, Namibia, Cameroon and Mozambique. Those who come to the UK under this scheme may claim state benefits if they can show that they intend to make the UK their permanent home. Commonwealth citizens who have the right of abode need to apply for a certificate of entitlement if they want to enter the UK. The certificate is a sticker which is placed inside a non-British passport. After five years living in the UK, a person who has moved to the UK under the Right of Abode can apply to naturalise as British citizen and obtain a British passport.

British Subject and British Protected Person
The 1981 Act retained the category of British subject without citizenship as British subject. British subjects are mainly people from the Indian sub-continent and Ireland. It ended the use of the term for those British subjects who had one of the various national citizenships, though the term Commonwealth citizen continues to be used in that regard.

Persons who held British subject status based on connections with what is now the Republic of Ireland before 1949 remain entitled to resume that status if they wish.

The status of British subject under the 1981 Act cannot be transmitted to children, although the Home Secretary has discretion to register a child as a British subject. This discretion is very rarely exercised.

British subject status can be renounced, but cannot be resumed for any reason. British subjects (except those connected with Ireland) lose their British subject status automatically if they acquire any other nationality.

For further information on the present use of the term "British subject", see British subject.

The 1981 Act also retained another category, that of British protected person (BPP), which is not a form of nationality as such (BPPs were never British subjects), but a status conferred on citizens of states under British protection. It has been argued that since BPPs are not considered stateless, they must hold some form of nationality, and that nationality must be a form of British nationality.

British Protected Persons are those who had a connection with a former British Protectorate, Protected State, League of Nations mandate or United Nations trust territory. These were mainly in Asia and Africa. British Overseas Citizens, by contrast, are those who have such a relationship with former British colonies. (Protectorates, Protected States, Mandates and Trust Territories were never, legally speaking, British colonies.) A British Protected Person will lose that status upon acquiring any other nationality or citizenship.

British National (Overseas)
The Hong Kong handover resulted in yet another nationality: British National (Overseas) or BN(O). There were some 3.5 million residents of Hong Kong who held British Dependent Territories citizen (BDTC) status by virtue of their connection with Hong Kong. Another 2 million other Hong Kong residents are believed to have been eligible to apply to become BDTCs. Upon handover, they would lose this status and became solely Chinese nationals. Uncertainty about the future of Hong Kong under Chinese rule led to the United Kingdom creating a new category of nationality for which Hong Kong BDTCs could apply. Any Hong Kong BDTC who wished to do so was able to acquire the (non-transmissible) status of British National (Overseas).

British Citizenship Legislation for Hong Kong
The handover of Hong Kong also resulted in:

 * the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and the associated British Nationality Selection Scheme; and
 * the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996 which gave certain women in Hong Kong the right to register as British citizens based on their husband's or former husband's war service in defence of Hong Kong during the Second World War; and
 * the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 which gave non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong access to British citizenship

In February 2006, British authorities announced that 600 British citizenship applications of ethnic minority children of Indian descent from Hong Kong were wrongly refused. The applications dated from the period July 1997 onwards. Where the applicant in such cases confirms that he or she still wishes to receive British citizenship the decision will be reconsidered on request. No additional fee will be payable by the applicant in such cases.

Recent changes to India's Citizenship Act 1955 provide that Indian citizenship by descent can no longer be acquired automatically at the time of birth. This amendment will also allow some children of Indian origin born in Hong Kong after 3 December 2004 who have a British National (Overseas) or British Overseas citizen parent to automatically acquire British Overseas citizenship at birth under the provisions for reducing statelessness in article 6(2) or 6(3) of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. If they have acquired no other nationality after birth, they will be entitled to register for full British citizenship with right of abode in the UK.

British Overseas Territories Act 2002
The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 changes the British Dependent Territories to British Overseas Territories, and British Dependent Territories Citizenship to British Overseas Territories Citizenship. This change is supposed to reflect the no longer "dependent" status of these territories, but may create confusion due to the close similarity between the terms "British Overseas Citizen" and "British Overseas Territories Citizen".

The Act also extends British citizenship to all British Overseas Territories Citizens the right to register as British Citizens, and thus acquire the right of abode, except those whose connection is solely with the military outposts known as the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus.

A distinction of terminology is made between British Overseas Territories Citizens born before 1 January 1983, introduction of British Dependent Territories, Citizenship, who would previously have been Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and those born after, and therefore who had not ever held right to freely enter and remain in the UK before 2002 (unless they also separately qualified as British Citizens or had "right to remain" stamped into their passports, to which they were entitled after five years legal residence in the UK).

 * Those persons who held British Overseas Territories citizenship (BOTC) on 21 May 2002 (except those solely connected with the Sovereign Base Areas) automatically acquired British citizenship on that date if they did not already possess it. Most people from Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands already held full British citizenship under earlier legislation, or had the right to register as British.
 * Persons who acquire BOTC after 21 May 2002 and do not already have British citizenship (mainly those naturalised as BOTCs after that date) may register as British citizens if they wish under s4A of the 1981 Act.

Until their successful claim against the British Government in the High Court over their eviction from their Territory, those connected to the British Indian Ocean Territory which houses the United States military base of Diego Garcia were to be excluded as well, but are now included. The accession of the whole island of Cyprus to the European Union would possibly have made the sole exclusion of the Sovereign Base Areas untenable, as they would become the only Cypriots (as well as the only British Overseas Territories citizens) not to have the right to live and work in the United Kingdom. However, in 2004, only the Greek part of the island was admitted, and the issue has not surfaced.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
This Act created a number of changes to the law including:

British Nationals with no other citizenship
The Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has also granted British Overseas Citizens, British Subjects and British Protected Persons the right to register as British citizens if they have no other citizenship or nationality and have not after 4 July 2002 renounced, voluntarily relinquished or lost through action or inaction any citizenship or nationality. Previously such persons would have not had the right of abode in any country, and would have thus been de facto stateless. Despite strong resistance from Senior Officials at the Home Office, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, said on 3 July 2002 that this would "right a historic wrong" which had left stateless tens of thousands of Asian people who had worked closely with British colonial administrations. The Government of India has also issued clarifications in respect of people with these citizenships to assist with consideration of applications under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Sanjay Shah, a British Overseas citizen passport holder, spent 13 months living in the duty-free section of Nairobi's Jomo Kenyatta International Airport, petitioning for full British citizenship. This was granted on the grounds that he had already given up his former Kenyan citizenship.

Overseas born children of British mothers
The Act has also conferred a right to registration as a British citizen on persons born between 8 February 1961 and 31 December 1982 who, but for the inability (at that time) of women to pass on their citizenship, would have acquired British citizenship automatically when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force.

In adding a section 4C to the British Nationality Act 1981, a person is entitled to registration if:

 * the person was born after 7 February 1961 but before 1 January 1983;
 * the person was born to a mother who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time and the person would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if it had been possible for women to pass on citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to their children in the same way as men could; and
 * had the person been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, they would have had the right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971 and would have become a British citizen on 1 January 1983.

Registration under both these categories confers British citizenship by descent and hence those with permanent residence in the United Kingdom, or those with the right to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom, may prefer to apply for naturalisation or section 4 registration instead. Both of these registration categories give British citizenship otherwise than by descent.

(This right to registration under this measure was later amended by the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which moved the earliest date of birth covered from 1961 to 1 January 1949, and elaborated in "a dense and at times impenetrable piece of drafting"  on the section 4C approach, while also covering numerous additional and less common situations, and adding a good character requirement. In 2018, the Supreme Court of the UK held that section 4C should be interpreted broadly. )

Deprivation of British nationality
Under amendments made by the Act, British nationals can be deprived of their citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied they are responsible for acts seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom or an Overseas Territory. This provision applied to only dual nationals-—it is not applicable if deprivation would result in a person's statelessness.

Prior to this law, British nationals who acquired that status by birth or descent (as opposed to registration or naturalisation) could not be deprived of British nationality.

Citizenship ceremonies
All new applicants for British citizenship from 1 January 2004 who are aged 18 or over must attend a citizenship ceremony and take an Oath of Allegiance and a Pledge to the United Kingdom before their grant of British citizenship can take effect

 * the requirement for a citizenship ceremony applies to applicants for registration as well as naturalisation
 * prior to 1 January 2004, British overseas territories citizens, British Overseas citizens, British subjects and British Nationals (Overseas), as well of citizens of countries sharing the Queen as Head of State (such as Australia and Canada) were exempt from taking the oath of allegiance. This exemption was abolished.

Similar requirements are imposed on applicants for British overseas territories citizenship, with the exception that the Pledge is based on the relevant territory rather than the United Kingdom.

It is unusual for adults to acquire British Overseas citizenship or British subject status (application must be made before age 18 and is very rarely granted); however, in such a case only an Oath of Allegiance would be required.

English language requirements
From 28 July 2004, English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) language requirements for naturalisation applicants were increased:

 * the language competency requirement was extended to those applying for naturalisation as the spouse of a British citizen
 * evidentiary requirements were increased.

Life in the United Kingdom test
From 1 November 2005, all new applicants for naturalisation as a British citizen must (unless exempted) prove they have passed the Life in the United Kingdom test.

 * The test must be passed before application is made to the Home Office
 * Those who pass the test do not need to provide separate evidence of language competency
 * Those aged 65 or over may be able to claim exemption
 * Those who attend combined citizenship and English (or Welsh) classes may be exempted from the test

Neither the language nor Life in the UK test requirements apply to those seeking registration (as opposed to naturalisation) as a British citizen.

Note that passing the test is also required for anyone wishing to remain indefinitely in the UK, whether or not they apply for citizenship. E.g., a husband or wife of a British citizen will be deported if they do not pass the test in time.

Children of unmarried British fathers
With effect from 1 July 2006, children may acquire British citizenship automatically from an unmarried British father (or a British permanent resident if the child is born in the United Kingdom). Proof of paternity must be shown.

Children born to unmarried British fathers before 1 July 2006 are not included in this provision. However they can be registered as British citizens upon application to the Home Office (if not British some other way), provided the child is aged under 18 and would have been British had the father been married to the mother. However, the agreement of the mother is needed. If the mother refuses then policy is for the home office to enquire of her reasons for refusal. If her reasons are deemed unreasonable registration may still be granted. Also, the minor can apply in their own right on reaching the age of 17.

As of 6 April 2015, a person over 18 years of age who was born out of wedlock before 1 July 2006 to a British father is entitled to register as a British citizen by descent under the Immigration Act 2014 using form UKF. Such child must also meet character requirements, pay relevant processing fees and attend a citizenship ceremony. However, if the applicant has a claim to register as a British citizen under other clauses of the British Nationality Act 1981, or has already acquired British citizenship after being legitimised, the application will be refused.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 made a number of changes to the law including:

 * allowing the Secretary of State to deprive a British national of his or her nationality on the basis of it being "conducive to the public good".  This is a less stringent test than the requirement of the 2002 Act and came into force on 16 June 2006.
 * allowing Right of Abode to be revoked on the same basis
 * introducing a good character requirements for all acquisitions of British citizenship, with the exception of section 4B registration, registration on the grounds of statelessness and cases where the applicant is under 10 years old.  This came into force on 4 December 2006.

Laws concerning immigration and naturalisation

 * Status of Children Born Abroad Act 1350
 * Sophia Naturalization Act 1705
 * Jewish Naturalization Act 1753
 * British Nationality Act 1772
 * Aliens Act 1905
 * Aliens Restriction Act 1914
 * Aliens Act 1919
 * Polish Resettlement Act 1947
 * British Nationality Act 1948
 * Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962
 * Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968
 * Immigration Act 1971
 * British Nationality Act 1981
 * Carriers' Liability Act 1987
 * Dublin Convention 1990
 * Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993
 * Asylum and Immigration Act 1996
 * Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
 * British Overseas Territories Act 2002
 * Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
 * Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004
 * Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
 * UK Borders Act 2007
 * Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009
 * Immigration Act 2014
 * Immigration Act 2016

title: History of British nationality law


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cateclixmicli

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Cateclixmicli
Oh, how I laughed. A highly obscure Aztec goddess of cataclysms with such an appropriate name. And weird Olmec stuff, too! Part of a set with Teothuauci and X'acti. No sign of actually being historically valid. Delete Shimgray 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, not a chance this is real. Delete. Stlemur 17:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Joke. -- BD2412 talk 19:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN all three. --Carnildo 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ho ho in the bin. Alf 23:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. -- Etacar11   23:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Lovecraftian horror

This is an archived copy of the discussion from Talk:H. P. Lovecraft which got this article started:

Time to break off pop culture?
Much of this article is dedicated, not to Lovecraft, but to the pop culture trappings of Lovecraftian horror. Is it, perhaps, time to slice off large hunks of the end of this article to crate that one? If no one has any strong feelings against, I'll probably be bold sometime in the next week or so... -Harmil 17:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I've felt like ripping out every two bit singer and webcomic that once made a toss-off reference to Lovecraft. But moving them to their own article would probably be the more friendly option. --Prosfilaes 18:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This work is now done. Feel free to go poke at the result at Lovecraftian horror. I'm sure it could use work, especially in adding information on Lovecraft-influenced novels. -Harmil 16:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know of any English novels who trace a majority of their literary influence to Lovecraft? I mean, we have plenty of pop culture, short story and videogame notes, but not much in the way of...has -anyone- ever actually written a novel in the vein of Lovecraftian horror? 71.195.86.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC).

Mythos vs. genre
I think this article is good, and a split between HPL's own work and the many derivatives thereof is a sensible idea, but perhaps some of the pop-culture contents should be moved further to References_to_the_Cthulhu_mythos (which already duplicates much of this anyway) so the contents better match the title. For instance, I don't think Something Positive is really 'Lovecraftian horror'. Maybe leave this page for Lovecraftian horror as a genre, including the Lovecraft-inspired works that are themselves Lovecraftian horror, and move/delete the rest? --Calair 23:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I could see moving anything from here to References_to_the_Cthulhu_mythos which used specific Lovecraftian mythos elements, and moving anything from there to here which doesn't. For example, In the Mouth of Madness makes no references to the mythos, but is certainly Lovecraftian horror. Same goes for Hellboy. Are you up for doing the merge in both directions? -Harmil 00:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * One other thought: I tried to make this page prose where I could (it's not List of Lovecraft-influenced fiction), and I'd rather see the sections that are lists - which I moved from H. P. Lovecraft - turned into histories of the influence of the genre. If no one else does that work, I probably will in the next few weeks. -Harmil 00:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I moved some stuff over. In the end there was less to move than I'd expected, but I tried to make the remainder more relevant to this page, showing how the RPGs mentioned incorporate Lovecraftian themes and removing the ones that just drop Mythos names and have an occasional tentacle in the artwork. I largely left the film section alone because I don't know enough to do much with it, but I don't think movies should be moved from here solely because they contain specific mythos elements.
 * If they have Lovecraftian themes they belong here (Mouth of Madness), if they drop mythos names they belong on the References page (Army of Darkness), if they do both (e.g. Dagon) then they're relevant to both. But since this page is more of a discussion, and the References one is more of a list, duplication shouldn't be too much of an issue; we're using them in a different way here. Does that sound reasonable? --Calair 01:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Very nice work. I like it. As for the movies, I'm sure there's more to be done. When I have time to think about it, I'll come back and see what I can do. -Harmil 04:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You guys have GOT to check out DOTA, the Warcraft 3 custom map. ALOT of it's names and items etc. are derived from Lovecraft. I mean, come on, an item called the Necronomicon? As if that's not a direct tribute to Lovecraft.

It's a super popular game as well, it's just been accepted as a proper game in CAL, so, it can only go up from here. =)

Lovecraftian vs. Lovecraftean
I'm almost certain that scholars like S.T. Joshi, etc. tend to use Lovecraftean rather than Lovecraftian (don't have my books on hand to check at work). To my eyes, it also looks more aesthetically proper. Should there be a page rename? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:05, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would be opposed to such a move. The common usage is so weighted toward "Lovecraftian" that there is no comparison at all. For example, hplovecraft.com, chaosium, and the H. P. Lovecraft entry all use "Lovecraftian". Searches on google show 65,000 hits for Lovecraftian and 500 hits for Lovecraftean (which suggests, "Did you mean: Lovecraftian").

 * There may be some scholars who chose another term (almost certainly to dissociate themselves from popular horror and avoid the stigma that results from such an association in academic circles), and that term might deserve a redirect and a footnote if you can find some references, but it's certainly not the primary usage. -Harmil 21:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it's just an attempt at disassociation; -ean has certainly been used in similar fashion elsewhere (Charles Fort gives us 'Fortean', for instance). "Lovecraftean" also looks more aesthetically proper to me (partly because 'Lovecrafte' works fine as an archaic version of the same name, and from there -ean is the natural construction).
 * But overall, established usage strongly favours -ian, and that's the decider. The -ean spelling should be acknowledged, but not by moving the page. --Calair 23:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Time for citations
Ever since I created this page, it's been in the back of my mind that I need to come back and cite the hell out of it, and now appears to be a good time. If anyone knows of any particularly obscure, and yet reliable sources for the information that we have here, please feel free to contribute them. -Harmil 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Video games
As is typical for any article containing a list, the video games section attracts a plethora of "oh, I know one too!" types of edits. For the rest of this article, that problem has been mitigated by turning lists into prose. I'm not an avid player of video games (though I've played some on the list), so I'm not sure that I'm the best person to do it, but it would be great if someone could update the video games section in this way. Remember that it's always reasonable to simply remove examples. The goal of this page is not to be an authoritative list of references to the mythos or even of true Lovecraftian horror. The goal is to explain the topic of lovecraftian horror and its impacts on popular culture to the reader. If an example is weak, feel free to toss it. IMHO, there are really only 2 or 3 video games that are truly iconic works of Lovecraftian horror, anyway. -Harmil 18:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, since no one else was interested, I took a stab at it. Thoughts? -Harmil 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

 * It works well at streamlining the article and refocusing it towards its original purpose, but I can't help but feel that the information would've been useful to _someone_, and the list version should probably have been spun off into its own article. Also, although this version highlights some of the heavyweights, like Alone in the Dark or The Lurking Horror, Eternal Darkness--one of the most famous Lovecraftian horror games, and one that intentionally largely develops its own Lovecraft-oid mythos instead of borrowing the Cthulhu mythos--is conspiciously absent. Planning to correct the latter part myself.Devilot 05:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * If you want to start a List of Lovecraftian video games, and then modify the Video games section of this article to start with, I would have no problem with it, but that's not the purpose of this article. -15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I never said it was. In fact, quite the contrary. I merely added Eternal Darkness as it was high-profile and helped flesh out the threadbare paragraph on Lovecraft-influenced console games. Although it wasn't influential in the evolution of Lovecraftian horror games, neither was Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth. Unless you say that Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth was influential for being the first high-profile, "mainstream" directly-Lovecraft-based console game. In which case, Eternal Darkness qualifies for similar reasons, and also got a better critical response. And, unlike Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, was a console exclusive. In fact, as this article is about Lovecraftian horror, not the Cthulhu Mythos, if we had to have only one console game listed, Eternal Darkness would be the better choice. It may not be directly based on the Cthulhu Mythos, but it came earlier, was console-exclusive, higher-profile, and garnered a better critical response, all while being just as based in Lovecraftian horror, if not the Cthulhu Mythos, as Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth.Devilot 17:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think you're starting to wander away from the topic of the article, and into the history of console video games. The section on video games in this article is not a list. It discusses the evolution of Lovecraftian influences on video games, and touches on each of the major types of platform from early PC games to consoles. The fact taht an example is cited for each one is rather beside the point. Did this other game actually change the way Lovecraftian influences were portrayed in console games, or was it just a popular game that happened to have some Lovecraftian elements? -Harmil 17:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Hello, I'm surprised noone listed the X-Com video game seies, which is clearly inspired by Cthulhu mythos and sometimes cites it explicitly. I can provide the text if you wish. Cpradier (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Arkham Horror
The section on games should also mention the Arkham Horror board game. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the game (I've only played it once) to write a passage about it, but I encourage someone more knowledgeable than me to do so. Pat Berry 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Possession, with Isabelle Adjani could be added to the movie list
There is some close links I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.49.61 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Video games: could use more on modern mixes
Many modern games mix fantasy sub-genres. I know this intuitively and from experience, but I have no good references to cite. Anyone know of any? The best example that comes to mind is World of Warcraft, which is high fantasy on its face, but has a number of specifically Lovecraftian storylines (the "Old Gods" are directly based on Lovecraft's concepts, and their storyline is one of the primary movers of the events taking place in the world). -Miskaton (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion from a HPLian fan : re-organise this entry
Why not redirect this entry under the title Lovecraftiana just as Sherlockiana with the following internal org. :

Chapter 1 : the Lovecraft legacy : would include "origin", "HPL horror", .... Chapter 2 : ( the cirle ) : friends, HPL scholarship, collab, followers,...

Chapter 3 :the Lovecraft-mania : games, movies, cameo apparences of HPL in horror/fantasy lit.,etc ..

Chapter 4 The community : links with the gothic comm (?),the fans community/communities, forged Necronomicon, etc ...

Cthulhu Ftaghn ! Ya Ya Shub Niggurath ! --Phil from Brussels 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Video game section: popularity
The final paragraph of the section on Lovecraftian video games states that Lovecraftian-styled video games have not generally been as successful as high fantasy-styled games. This may or may not be true (and it's arguably less so now than it was in the past), the only source cited for support doesn't back up this claim at all, IMO.

The article cited only mentions Lovecraft in one paragraph, and the paragraph in question only states that Lovecraft's style of horror/fantasy (like Robert E. Howard's) found more popularity after his death. The source does compare Howard-esque "swords and sorcery" fantasy to Tolkien-esque "high fantasy", and argues that the latter has been more influential in the games industry. Which makes our article's reference to "high fantasy, swords-and-sorcery model games", conflating the two styles that the NYT article is explicitly contrasting, a little questionable. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Videogames: Mass Effect
Bioware's Sci-Fi installment introduces us to an ancient race of machines that annihilates all sentient life on the galaxy, every 50.000 years, the speech of one of them shows marked lovecraftian influencie, which I'll quote:

"-Sovereign: Rudimentary creatures of blood and flesh, you touch my mind, fumbling in ignorance, incapable of understanding. There is a realm of existence so far beyond your own you cannot even imagine it. I am beyond your comprehension. I am Sovereign.

-Shepard: Sovereign isn't just some Reaper ship Saren found. It's an actual Reaper!

-Sovereign: Reaper? A label created by the Protheans to give voice to their destruction. In the end, what they chose to call us is irrelevant. We simply... are. Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything. /.../ My kind transcends your very understanding. We are each a nation - independent, free of all weakness. You cannot grasp the nature of our existence. We have no beginning. We have no end. We are infinite. Millions of years after your civilization has been eradicated and forgotten, we will endure. We are legion. The time of our return is coming. Our numbers will darken the sky of every world. You cannot escape your doom. I am the Vanguard of your destruction. This exchange is over..." --190.21.70.32 (talk) 14:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Lovecraftian horror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091221081134/http://www.camelliasoftware.com:80/xcentrikz/newslovecraft.htm to http://www.camelliasoftware.com/xcentrikz/newslovecraft.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Night Vale
I personally cannot source enough information to add this myself, but isn't Welcome to Night Vale an excellent addition? Considering the makers emphasize their influence from H. P. Lovecraft? Zkidwiki (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lovecraftian horror. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208054457/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=150798 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=150798
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515215313/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/120187655350299.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/120187655350299.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Brian Aldiss The Saliva Tree
This Nebula award winning pastiche by Brian Aldiss. with its obvious Color Out Of Space and Dunwich Horror influences surely merits a mention in the Literature section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.101.123 (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Major Issues
Ouch, I have made a couple of small changes but really the article feels almost salvageable in current state. The major issue is a failure to distinguish "lovecraftian horror" as a distinct genre of "horror" with its own literary/film conventions (that would actually merit its classification as a distinct subgenre) rather than treating it as "anything that shoehorns in some Cthulhu mythos stuff". Referencing some element of lovecraft is not enough to make something "lovecraftian horror" - that is simply "Cthulhu mythos in popular culture", so the majority of the article being a list of "things with pop culture trappings of Lovecraft", to borrow from a comment 15 years ago is... painful.

In short, the article still remains a plethora of "oh, i know one too" style listing with little of value included. I will reiterate that "references to lovecraft" =/= "lovecraftian horror"

I feel as a start, the article could be moved to "cosmic horror" since while lovecraft can be considered the subgenre progenitor, it is larger than one person.Alice Ashpool (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We should use whichever name is more common, which probably is indeed "cosmic horror". Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm just happy if things are well-sourced, but yes, we should omit non-cosmic-horror works, even those that do refer to the cthulhu mythos. We should also decide what to do about the many works that are cosmic horror, and which are also directly based on the Cthulhu mythos; IMHO we should just refer the reader to Cthulhu Mythos in popular culture rather than try to duplicate some of their content, partly to save ourselves work, and partly because in some cases it's unclear whether, say, the Cthulhu mythos section of Deities and Demigods should itself be listed with other works of cosmic horror. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I have made some changes. I agree with you about "cosmic horror being more common" which is why I was suggesting moving the article. My wikipedia noobs skills are showing because I do not know how to do that or if I am even allowed.
 * I don't expect it to be controversial, but I'd say give it a week to see if anyone objects, then rename using HELP:MOVE. In the unlikely event someone dislikes the move after it's done, they can revert the move easily enough. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 * On the second points, I have made considerable changes to bits of the article - Re-writing the lead, and some of the bits I feel confident enough to work on: 1970s and 2010s film mostly, with paying attention to references and trying to make it cohesive to a reader rather than just a list of WP:POPCULTURE. I've tried to make them as short as possible while hitting the major works that 2ndary sources tend to call cosmic horror.

 * My current thoughts are that the comic section needs to be slimmed down and the video game section needs to be re-written as more than just a list, but mostly that 1) the Origin and Theme section needs to do a better job of showing that "cosmic horror" is a thing distinct from other horror genres, it has a definable meaning in culture/the arts, and that sources are using it as such, and 2) the difficult thing of a concise summary of what "Cosmic/Lovecraftian horror" actually is.

 * If anyone has issues with the changes I have made/am making hit me up here Alice Ashpool (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally discussion of edits should be raised on this talk page so the whole community can participate easier, rather than on user talk pages. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, I meant here as in on the talk page - just showing that I am paying attention to see if anyone objects and/or has criticism/improvements to my changes. Alice Ashpool (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Original Research Template from Themes
I have removed this template after removing some unverifiable claims and adding references to other unreferenced claims and adding in a couple of additional themes highlighted in literature. I feel it is "ok" now,doing an adequate job of highlighting verifiable themes, but still remains a bullet point list and can be improved. Alice Ashpool (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Cosmic Horror Expansion?
Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I am conducting research for a course of mine, and I happened to stumble across this page. H.P. Lovecraft and his works are something that have always fascinated me, and I was thrilled to come across a page so dedicated to Lovecraft and his themes. I noticed, however, that there is not much talk on "Cosmic Horror" in its entirety. I do see that underneath the "Origin" header, there is a link to "Cosmicism." However, the information present on this page may not be helpful for the average reader. I think that it would be a great aid to insert a header titled "Cosmic Horror- The Overarching Lovecraftian Theme" and underneath this, I would insert "Definition" which gives a bit more detail into cosmic horror, and then, I found enough information to add in a section titled "Psychological." As we all know, much of cosmic horror walks the line of sanity. These additions would allow for this page to be more of a "one-stop" for the average reader. Finally, I think it would aid readers to add in an "Examples" section. Cosmic horror is quite a broad term, and it is something that may show difficult for the average reader to grasp. Providing specific examples from Lovecraft's work may allow the reader to understand cosmic horror on a deeper level. Also, I notice that there are very few direct examples given. In order to gather these examples, I used direct quotes from Lovecraft's work, and conducted further research on the stories in particular.

If nobody is opposed, I will go ahead and move forward with these edits. LiteratureLearner14 (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I see you've made some edits along the lines you outline above. I think some of your paraphrasing from your sources is too close. For instance, you have "It uses to power of the sublime to make readers feel small, inadequate, inconsequential, and completely helpless against something vast and natural" and the source you credit has "These cosmic horror tales draw upon the power of the sublime to make us feel small, inconsequential, and totally helpless against something vast and natural". I think you would be better off using a direct quote. Would also suggest you think about the tone you have used in sentences such as "If you thought you had control over anything in your life, read a cosmic horror story- don’t feel so in control now, do you?". And avoid anything which borders on original research - remember everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable reference. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Call of Cthulhu Video Game
Self-explanatory, not included in Lovecraftian Horror, HP Lovecraft, nor Call of Cthulhu pages, nor does it have it's own page. Pretty good game, it's said in this article that video games are an intrinsically difficult medium to portray cosmic horror into, however I think that this game, if played first hand, and concluded to acte of it's endings, conveys the experience rather well... Sceak (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Add under film and tv?
Final season of “the chilling adventures of Sabrina” is about the “Eldritch Terrors” and a main character reads from the gospel of H P Lovecraft, which is indicating that the gospel is telling the story of the final season. 104.220.88.34 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

World of Warcraft
world of Warcraft is heavily inspired by lovecraftian stories. Most notable are the old gods (Shath'Jar). C'Thun, Yogg-Saron, Y'Shaarj and N'Zoth

https://wowpedia.fandom.com/wiki/Old_God 77.105.204.67 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lovecraftian horror


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X'acti

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 02:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

X'acti
An obscure Aztec goddess, wife of a god which is almost certainly a hoax, apparently named to sound like one in India. Part of a set with Teothuauci and Cateclixmicli. No sign of actually being historically valid. Delete Shimgray 16:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the name even fits into Nahuatl spelling rules. Delete Stlemur 17:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Joke. TEOTWAWKI gives it away. -- BD2412 talk 19:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * BJAODN the group. --Carnildo 22:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ho ho in the bin. Alf 23:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hoax. -- Etacar11   23:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X'acti