text:
Unified Emulator Format

Unified Emulator Format (UEF) is a container format for the compressed storage of audio tapes, ROMs, floppy discs and machine state snapshots for the 8-bit range of computers manufactured by Acorn Computers. First implemented by Thomas Harte's ElectrEm emulator and related tools, it is now supported by major emulators of Acorn machines and carried by two online archives of Acorn software numbering thousands of titles.

UEF attempts to concisely reproduce media borne signals rather than simply the data represented by them, the intention being an accurate archive of original media rather than merely a capability to reproduce files stored on them. A selection of metadata can be included, such as compatibility ratings, position markers, images of packaging and the text of instruction manuals.

The Acorn machines implement the Kansas City standard (KCS) for tape data encoding and as a result the file format is suitable for creating backups of original media for several non-Acorn machines. As of version 0.10 the file format carries BASICODE signals as well.

TZX is a chunked format with similar scope for the ZX Spectrum series.

History
Before the development of the UEF, archives of Acorn computer software on the World Wide Web had adopted a convention of hosting ZIP archives of the raw files on a tape, each raw file accompanied by a sidecar file, with extension, carrying the load and execution addresses from the file header. The INF convention, described and implemented by Wouter Scholten in bbcim (1995), extends the output format of the  command (built into Acorn DFS and ADFS, which lists file lengths and other metadata attached to files on disc ) to cover CRCs and the order of files on tape. While it works adequately for storing user files, it does not preserve the baud rate of the recording, precise timing information or the non-standard data streams used in copy protected titles.

In the case of disc-based software, it became increasingly convenient to send a sector dump of the disc instead, and by the time of the UEF's introduction the file extensions  and   were already established for single-sided and double-sided raw images of DFS discs, respectively. Distributed bare or in a ZIP archive, they remain popular on archive sites.

Aims
In a 2010 post to the Stardot forum, Harte explained at length his reasons for creating the format: being the first to address emulation of the Acorn Electron and its primary medium, tape, Harte wanted a fine-grained and technically optimal representation of media, compared to existing ad hoc formats; and to package the multiple media elements of a software release into a single file, so that downloading a UEF is "more like obtaining the original product". He went on to observe that it was the tools in use, and "user need", that determined the actual uses to which the UEF had been put.

Structure
A UEF file consists of a fixed length header that identifies itself, followed by a linked list of chunks containing the data of interest. The header comprises the magic string, a terminating null character, and the two-byte version number of the UEF specification in use. A reading application needs to pay attention to the version number, as the unit of measurement in some chunks differs according to the specification version, and one chunk has been redefined between versions.

Each chunk consists of a two-byte ID which determines its meaning, the length of the body in four bytes, and the body itself. An application can readily skip the bodies of chunks it does not need to process. After the last chunk the file simply ends. Currently, UEF chunks do not nest.

The whole UEF file, including the header, may optionally be compressed in gzip format. By examining the start of the file for a gzip or UEF header, a decompression library can be invoked as appropriate.

Content
The Unified Emulator Format models software on cassette as a contiguous sequence of segments, which may be carrier tones, the modulated asynchronous signals of ordinary data blocks, security cycles (modulated synchronous signals, said to be an "identification feature" ) or gaps where no recognised signal is present. Tape UEF chunks are concatenated in the order they appear, to build up the representation of a whole recording. When generated from a real source tape, each waveform on the tape corresponds directly to a tape chunk, such that the source can be accurately reconstructed (with any non-encodable signals replaced by gaps of equal length.)

Standard Acorn streams (chunk ID: 0x0100) are encoded so that their bytes reappear in the UEF chunk body. From version 0.10, direct support is extended to all asynchronous formats (0x0104) including the  format of BASICODE. Otherwise there is a generic chunk (0x0102) to accommodate any arbitrary sequence of bits. Security wave chunks (0x0114) also carry bit streams, encoded in a different form to allow the half-length one bits observed in commercial recordings to be represented.

There are some modal variables affecting the interpretation of these chunks: the baud rate, 1200 baud for Acorn signals or 300 baud for KCS; the exact carrier frequency, which determines the playing time of the reconstructed tape; and the phase of the signal. The latter two may change within a published recording, and their absolute values depend on the tape player, amplifier and sound card used to digitise the signal.

A UEF file can contain markers to separate the tapes of a multiple-tape distribution, and the sides of each tape; positions of interest within each side can also be marked.

Discs are stored as raw sector dumps of each surface, along with their geometry and a byte identifying the file system. Previous versions of the specification had provisions to encode discs at the byte stream level, or the magnetic domain level. With SSD and DSD sector dumps serving standard BBC discs well, and the mature FDI format catering for copy-protected software, the disc image function of UEF is little used.

Sideways ROMs are likewise stored as raw data, plus an indication of their purpose and a ROM slot recommendation. Again the user base prefers bare ROM dumps for archival.

State snapshot UEF files include standardised chunks to store the major portions of an Acorn Electron or BBC Micro's state: main, shadow and expansion bus memory, the CPU and the WD1770 floppy drive controller; also the Electron ULA and the Slogger Master RAM Board, a common Electron add-on. A patch memory chunk rewrites a block of memory at any address, allowing the UEF format to package pokes. To store state elements not accommodated in the standard chunks, emulators can define their own chunks. A private use area of chunk IDs is reserved for this or any other purpose, although some emulators save state under invalid chunk IDs in the public space.

Multiplexed data is an extension for emulators, used by ElectrEm but without a published specification:

"Bit multiplexing supplies the emulator with additional information so that old programs may be run to produce a greater quality of output. This feature is really only for emulation use of UEF files and ignoring bit multiplexing will have no effect on the accuracy of your tool to original hardware."

One salient application mentioned by Harte is to superimpose "new graphics on old games", and a single example, a 256-colour enhanced Daredevil Dennis, is available from StairwayToHell.com to run in ElectrEm.

Multiplexed data chunks are intended to follow ordinary data chunks in any of the above classes, supplementing the data. Their contents are not meant to be visible to the Acorn computer, whether real or emulated, but otherwise their meaning has not been specified.

Chunks providing content information include the file origin chunk, which identifies the application that generated the UEF file. Inlay scan chunks, intended as a file preview, hold a raw bitmap of the cover art although anything beyond a thumbnail can take up more data than a typical game. The UEF author can also provide the text of an instruction booklet or a URL for more information, a short title for display, minimum machine specification and keyboard mapping for the enclosed software; and where a game does not use the whole screen, the coordinates of the visible area can be given. A minority of UEF files available online contain anything in this class but an origin chunk.

A UEF file can contain multiple classes of data at once, as Harte intended; it is not possible to know which classes it contains without scanning the whole file. In its file selection box ElectrEm displays an icon according to the first data class chunk it finds.

MakeUEF
MakeUEF is a Windows application written by Thomas Harte and expanded by Fraser Ross to convert audio samples into UEF files. Two grades are offered. An 'amateur' version reads WAV files or a live signal played to the sound card, and transcribes only standard data blocks with accuracy. The 'professional' grade accepts only CSW files, which represent waves preprocessed into rectangular pulse trains, but it encodes all audio information supported by the UEF specification.

MakeUEF claims to have been the sole creator of all UEF files available on the Web before November 2004, the month of its version 1.0 release. Although the file format was more capable, supporting "gap lengths" since February 2001 at the latest, only "program data" was retained by MakeUEF prior to version 1.0. From November 2004 the fidelity of MakeUEF improved and the file spec was further refined, and an extension of  ("high quality") was adopted to reflect this. The AcornPreservation.org archive only carries the HQ.UEF variety as well as the CSW source files. Its sister site StairwayToHell.com accepts 'amateur' UEF translations and files produced by pre-1.0 MakeUEF. the latter site hosts 1,494 transcriptions of BBC Micro cassette titles and at least 800 of Electron titles.

Others

 * Several emulators of Acorn machines support UEF natively, to read and write tape data (at original speed or faster) and store state snapshots. Examples include ElectrEm, BeebEm and B-Em.
 * FreeUEF by Thomas Harte and the UEFReader Java Sound plugin convert a UEF file to a wave suitable for recording on tape or playing back to a physical computer.
 * UberCassette are cross-platform, multi-format encoders emitting UEF from samples of Acorn cassettes.
 * The UEFwalk Perl script validates and extracts data from UEF files.
 * The XVUEF patch extends the Xv image editor to support the little-used inlay scan chunks of the UEF.

Use on real BBC Micros
The GoMMC and GoSDC hardware extensions, produced by John Kortink from 2004, provide a virtual cassette playing capability. The accompanying PC tools import the cassette data from UEF files and store the extracted cassette stream on a memory card.

In February 2012, Martin Barr released version 5.0 of UPURS, a ROM based suite of utilities to aid data transfer to real BBC Microcomputers. As part of that release, the tool UPCFS saw its first release which enabled a claimed 86% compatibility rate with existing decompressed UEF files allowing them to be transferred to a real BBC Micro using a custom User Port cable that presents an RS-232 capable connection to a PC.

title: Unified Emulator Format


text:
Talk:Joseph Nation

Untitled
How does this need to be cleaned up>

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joseph Nation. 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/20080609124055/http://www.joenation.com/ to http://www.joenation.com/

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) 07:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Joseph Nation


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of controversial religious leaders

 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. Woohookitty 07:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

List of controversial religious leaders
Can I add Jesus, Osama bin Laden, Mother Theresa and Ghandi, or shall we just delete? (unsourced and inherently POV) --Doc (?) 22:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * DELETE Rule of thumb kids - if someone is popular that person is controversial someplace Ryan Norton T 22:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete like that list of prominent visionaries we got rid of a few weeks ago. David | Talk 22:29, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of religious leaders, as that would be both funny and accurate. Penelope D 22:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Doc Jtkiefer  T - 22:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Amren (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I've changed my vote, see the talk page.--T. Anthony 00:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * delete problematic. __earth 05:06, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha. Redirect per Penelope D. -Sean Curtin 01:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Penelope D. Cmadler 14:48, 1 September 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:
Tahiti sandpiper

The Tahiti Sandpiper or Tahitian Sandpiper (Prosobonia leucoptera) is an extinct member of the large wader family Scolopacidae that was endemic to Tahiti in French Polynesia until its extinction sometime before 1819.

It was discovered in 1773 during Captain Cook's second voyage, when a single specimen seems to have been collected, but it became extinct in the nineteenth century. Only one museum specimen is known to exist, held in the Aves collection of Naturalis Biodiversity Center. The bird's name in the Tahitian language was transcribed as toromē.

Taxonomy
The Tahiti sandpiper was formally described in 1789 by the German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin in his revised and expanded edition of Carl Linnaeus's Systema Naturae. He placed it with the other sandpipers in the genus Tringa and coined the binomial name Tringa leucoptera. Gmelin based his description on the "white-winged sandpiper" that had been described and illustrated in 1785 by the English ornithologist John Latham from a specimen collected in Tahiti. The species is now placed in the genus Prosobonia that was introduced in 1850 by the French naturalist Charles Lucien Bonaparte with the Tahiti sandpiper as the type species. Bonaparte did not explain the etymology of the genus name, but it is likely from the Ancient Greek prosōpon meaning "mask" or "face". The specific epithet leucoptera is derived from Ancient Greek leukopteros meaning "white-winged".

Description
Based on Zusi & Jehl (1970): A small (some 18 cm long), plain-colored sandpiper, brown below, darker above, with a white wing patch. Top and sides of head and neck to wings and back sooty brown, darker on back and wings. A small white patch behind and above the eye. Chin buffish white. Lores, rump and underside rusty. Wing coverts with some rusty edging. Remiges with paler inner surfaces. Underside of wing dusky brown with paler edges to coverts. A crescent-shaped white patch formed by tertiary coverts; smaller on the underside of the wing. Ten primaries, twelve rectrices. Central tail feathers sooty brown with rusty tips; outer ones rusty with sooty brown barring.

Bill blackish, lower mandible slightly paler, pointed, thin and short, rather like in an insectivorous passerine than a wader. Legs greenish-hued pale straw color. Toes unwebbed. A slim pale rusty ring around the eye. Iris a very dark brown.

Two probable specimens taken on Moorea by William Anderson between September 30 and October 11, 1777, formed the basis for the description of the Moorea Sandpiper. Three specimens mentioned by John Latham in 1787 all differed from one another, but the single remaining one, RMNH 87556, cannot be positively identified with any of them. How it came into the possession of the museum cannot be retraced with complete certainty, but it probably was acquired in 1819 with other specimens from Georg Forster. There also exists a painting by Forster, drawn from the original specimen.

At any rate, the specimen agrees better with the Tahiti bird in Forster's painting. The Moorea Sandpiper—of which another painting, by William Ellis, and a plate by John Webber, supposed to depict the other specimen, constitute all remaining evidence—differs in the color of wings and head. Whether these two forms were species, subspecies, or simply variants due to age or sex cannot be determined with certainty, but for the present they are more often treated as different species than not. The Tahiti and Moorea Sandpipers are believed to have occurred near small streams.

Bones of a related form have been found on Mangaia in the Cook Islands. It is not likely that they will be studied anytime soon; a scientific description would require either successful extraction and analysis of DNA from both the bones and the Leiden specimen (which would risk being damaged during extraction of the tissue sample), or the collection of a sufficient amount of material from Tahiti or Moorea to determine the Mangaia bird's affiliation by analysis of the osteology.

title: Tahiti sandpiper


text: User talk:70.92.137.246

title: User talk:70.92.137.246


text:
User talk:Sunray/Archive04

Emptiness and nothingness
Thanks for your help in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taoism. I'm a newbie here. What should I do when someone reverted my changes wilfully? --ETTan 09:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ahhhhmm... Newbies are unlikely to know the term 'newbie'. So believe that if you want.
 * As to why I reverted him the other day, I thought I had marked it as a vandalism... primarily based on Mel's rationale, though that had been made possibly in the other contested article. IIRC, that's exactly only the second time I've reverted any article.  As a rule I don't believe in it, but since the word switch was obviously hotly disputed, I felt it appropriate since it had passed under the notice of Gbog for some days.
 * I posted my reasons I thought it wise to warn Gbog on User Talk:ETTan that he might be a socket puppet to the notorious Mr Tan, only to visit the talk page where you have been so active and hence become convinced that he is indeed Mr Tan in disguise with little doubt in my mind whatever. There are simply too many similariites.  Take a read of the Talk Archieves (3 or 4) for Talk:Tsushima Island.
 * Understand, I like Mr Tan as a kid -- I've invested a lot of time trying to help him improve his working with other editors See Paras 89-115 w/a few interleaved other matters. I'm just out of tolerance for behavior that adversely affects the time of other editors.  For example, see message on User:JMBell for just one person he's driven from Wiki, and I suspect there are several others.
 * I'll leave this battle to you and Mel. I'm out of Wikitime for the near future save for dropin visits.  Best Wishes,
 * Fra nkB  05:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Style guide on eras
Hi, Sunray. About Jguk's change and the recent reversions -- I can see how it's open to differences of opinion. My main point is against the reversions. I generally think that after one or two reversions by anyone, an issue should go to the talk page.

Jguk's original change that spurred the "Clarification" discussion was more extensive than the more recent change that is spurring the reverts. In the original change, he added to the style guide something along the lines that "BCE" and "CE" are less well understood.

I realize that a few people, including myself, disagreed with the original change. But as the discussion evolved, he asked if there were any objections to a particular sentence. I suggested a change to that sentence. No one else said anything about that particular sentence.

Perhaps what he did change recently amounts to something between the two. Still, in my view, it would be best for all, at least in this specific case, not to revert but to discuss. In my view, reversions often (not always) have the main effect of making a situation more heated. Maurreen (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Possibly enough has changed that a new arbitration case would be more conclusive and productive. I was very surprised by the result of the last case.
 * For whatever it's worth, although I don't agree with the reverts in general, I do see you as easily taking the higher road than Jguk, especially in general but also in this particular case, because you are discussing and he is not. Maurreen (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Korean and Japanese characters
It is unfortunate that the Japanese and Korean translations/characters of Tao have been removed as these are cultures in which the concept of the Tao has had equal importance as that of China. This is an encyclopedia for the twenty-first century, international and ecumenical in scope and purpose. Such information is useful for a variety of reasons not least etymological. Thankyou. User: Langdell

 * [Cross posted to Langdell's talk page] Thanks for your note. I agree with you that Taoism has had a significant impact on these three countries and it would be good to reflect that.  I'm not sure how best to do that, though (see my note on the Tao talk page).  It seems to me to be somewhat cumbersome to include all those words in the lead sentence of the Tao article.  Perhaps someone will have some suggestions as to an alternative. Sunray 05:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ceasefire?
Sunray

Is there a general ceasefire on date notation or not? I remain confused. Recently someone tried to break the ceasefire on Fu Hsi, so I reverted them to the pre-ceasefire state. Then Sortan, who is a date notation troll (probably a sockpuppet of CDThieme, and certainly a sockpuppet of someone), intervened. You have now reverted my attempts to squash Sortan. If we are to have a ceasefire that means everyone has to respect it - even where they would rather not do so.

I would urge you to help me on User preferences for BCE/CE notation, where I try to outline a specification that could then be given to a developer (assuming one was found) that would allow those users preferring BCE/CE notation to select it. This seems to be the only long-term solution (apart from, of course, guerilla warfare, which does nobody any good), jguk 07:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * [Copied from Jguk's Talk page] Thank you for your note about this. I was about to contact you to see if we could attempt a conciliation.  Let me reply to your question first.  You ask: "Is there a general ceasefire on date notation or not?"  Maurreen suggested a ceasefire on July 29 and I think it is a creditable effort to bring some sanity to this absurd conflict over notation for eras.

 * You go on to say: "Recently someone tried to break the ceasefire on Fu Hsi, so I reverted them to the pre-ceasefire state." I think you are mistaken about the "pre-ceasefire state."  The survey on the Fu Hsi talk page was completed on July 24, five days before Maurreen's call for a ceasefire.  Based on the consensus, I made the change to BCE/CE that day and I believe it was in accordance with the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and  Consensus.

 * You reverted to BC/AD notation on July 25, stating that my change was contrary to the MoS. Jonathunder reverted back to BCE/CE on July 26.  Meanwhile we discussed this on the talk page and I asked you to explain how my actions were inconsistent with the MoS.  You didn't provide an explanation, but you did observe the consensus (at least to the extent of not reverting Jonathunder).  Then on August 6, FeanorStar7 violated both the ceasefire and the consensus established on the talk page.  He was reverted by Kaldari on August 7 and you waded back in with a series of five reverts on August 7 and 8.  I won't comment on your battle with Sortan.  If you think that Sortan is a troll, do you not see that by trading reverts with him, you place yourself on the same level?

 * That is what I would like to talk to you about. I've noticed what I think is a serious lowering of your standards in the past several months over this date notation business.  You were once a respected editor with several featured articles to his credit.  It seems you have let your POV get the better of you on this BCE/BC business.  I'm not sure why that is.  I've read all your posts carefully but I cannot figure out what is behind your actions.  Your rationalization of "think of the readers" has, as Ambi has pointed out, nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia policy.  I note that you are offended when people refer to what you are doing as a "crusade."  Is that perhaps hitting too close to home?  Is it a religious thing with you?  Of course, you needn't feel you have to respond to such a personal question.  But by all means please do reflect on this.  If we could establish the basis of your POV, we might be able to work something out.  Surely these cannot be happy times for you, can they?  I can tell you I've been troubled by this problem.  Wikipedia will only come out ahead if we can sort this out.  How could we work on that?  Sunray 09:18, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * You will note that I have never argued it's a religious thing - if I comment on that point at all it is to say that it is not a religious thing - it's about recognising that the vast majority of our potential audience does not use, is unfamiliar and/or does not understand BCE/CE notation. Of course, it goes further than this. Our potential audience are, generally-speaking, not professional historians (though no doubt a very small percentage are). They cannot be expected to understand historians' jargon generally (and this date notation thing is only a very small subset of this). I believe strongly in making WP accessible to as many people as possible - and that can be difficult. It is all too tempting to write in a style that people already familiar with a subject will understand, but not others. And once an article is written that way, on WP it very rarely recovers.

 * Maybe I can throw the question back to you - is it a religious thing for you? (and if not, why are you unwilling to go for what is the most common notation in use world wide by a long way?)

 * I'm very conscious of this on the cricket-related articles I write - and I'd very much welcome someone who is not as familiar with cricket as me to talk me through which bits are not as accessible to a wider audience than they could be. Unfortunately such a person has not appeared - but if they ever did, I have no doubt that the articles would improve greatly were that a case.

 * As an example, one of the articles I'm most pleased to get elevated to featured article status was United Kingdom corporation tax. Not a sexy subject, but one worth explaining to a wider audience in terms they can understand.

 * Returning to the BCE/CE point, I see the only likely permanent resolution to be an option to select user preferences - so that those who want to see BCE/CE can see that for all articles, whilst those who do not wish to see BCE/CE (which I believe to be a vast majority) will see BC/AD. That is why I have started User preferences for BCE/CE notation - the idea being that if it is already set out for a developer what needs to be done, we're more likely to find a developer willing to program it in. And this will be particularly so if we can get a large number of people supporting the benefits of such an option.

 * Without such an option, the problem will remain - and will be continued, and by far wider a grouping of people than just you and me, jguk 09:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My religion has nothing to do with this. Does yours? jguk 11:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Returning Greetings
Thankyou for your message and pleased to make your acquaintance. In case I have deleted any of your work on the article Tao there was one point that I didn't mention in the relevant edit summary. There was a piece of text appended to the statement about Taoism as a unique stream of Chinese thought which stated that the School of Tao or the Tao Te Ching was concerned with 'metaphysical speculations' about the origin of the universe. The word 'speculation' seemed to me misleading since speculation was as foreign to Lao Zi as it was to the Buddha or Jesus. The sayings of Lao Zi are those of a realised sage not those of a philosopher in our Western sense of the word. Many thanks. User: Langdell. 20:22. 10th August 2005.

On copyediting

 * Jeff: I see that you have copyediting some of my copyedits. In future, you should be aware that I charge a small fee for my copyediting services to Wikipedia.  That fee is that I get to put commas where I think they should go. :-)  I use the Chicago Manual of Style which does not countenance commas outside of quotes.  I think that the Wikipedia MoS is misguided to follow British, Australian and New Zealand usage on this.  After all, North America constitutes about 70% of the English-speaking world.  I suppose it is a reasonable trade-off to get some sanity with apostrophes, though.  And of course, I won't fight over it.  I will just ask that you please leave my commas alone so I don't have to try change Wikipedia's MoS (engendering endless discussion about which is fly spec and which pepper).

 * I'm more puzzled about your removal of my em dashes. You've got some technology that I don't believe I have.  It would be handy to have, though, as the written "—" often confuses other editors.Sunray 23:03, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Before I rant about Manual of Style, let me address your second point, about em-dashes. With the installation of MediaWiki 1.5 software, Wikipedia converted from ISO 8859-1 page encoding to UTF-8 (Unicode). I'm no expert on this topic, but it's my understanding that changing HTML special characters to Unicode characters avoids some problems, and as you say, it helps editing readability. For easy input, a large selection of clickable characters is provided below page-edit boxes for those of us who don't have nice keys for these and who haven't finger-memorized the Unicode numbers. Em-dash, en-dash, and h-ellipsis are included in that set.

Now about Wikipedia style… If you wish to use CMoS style, I recommend you submit your résumé to the University of Chicago Press. Every publication and publisher in existence has a formal or informal set of style practices, and they are completely justified in enforcing it within their domain. Wikipedia's is Manual of Style, and it is determine by its editors (i.e., the entire Wikipedia community). Many people who go to work at UCP or other publishers find themselves having to adopt style practices that are in variance with what they learned in school (and what they often believe, incorrectly, is "the" right way). This is true in both the U.S. and UK, with each having a mass of conflicting style practices even within their own borders. (It is only extreme parochialism, down to the specific schools in which they were taught, that causes people to think there is a single "right" way.) The only way to make a worldwide publication like Wikipedia work is to accept that your practices (and my practices) are not the "right" way for WP; only WP can decide what is right, in exactly the same fashion it establishes solid articles — through community revision and compromise. In all likelihood, any practice you cite can be traced to similar historical compromises made among earlier editing groups.

Like so many others, you assume that any style change in variance with your understanding is some kind of foreign conspiracy, while ignoring the fact that much of the style practices follow U.S. guidelines. That's what we call "compromise". (By the way, I'm American, so I learned many of the same practices you did, including the comma and period stuff.) One particular point which is always missed by folks on either side of the "pond" is that WP specifies American quote marks ("double quotes", with "single quotes" inside when needed), but specifies British exclusion of commas and periods in quotations except when forming a complete sentence. To quote the very first line of WP:MOS: "With quotation marks we split the difference between American and British usage." (Note the inclusion in that last sentence of the period for a complete sentence. Wiki wars have been fought over this kind of detail.) Invariably, Yanks will whine about the comma placement, and Brits will whinge about the quote marks. Both will disingenously ignore the compromises made in their favor.

You cite a SWAG about how much of the English-speaking world is in North America without documentation. I've seen this all before. The folks that do provide such documentation frequently quote contradicting studies, so even sourced statistics cannot be trusted. Worse, you imply that North America has some kind of homogeneous writing style, which is absolutely absurd. If you'd take the trouble to read the virtual reams of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and its archives (which I have), you'd find that not only do the U.S. and Canada vary considerably in details, but regions within the U.S. also have conflicting practices, to say nothing of the clear contradictions visible in any quick reading of the many competing U.S. authorities like CMoS, AP, NY Times, Strunk & White, U.S. Government, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

You threaten to change WP:MOS? I dare you to try! At any given time, you'll find dozens of vicious editors who will rip you to shreds for moving commas, changing spellings, altering cases, and even tweaking adjectives that describe how one should approach any topic. I know; I've participated in those battles. To quote John Lennon, "You tell me it's the institution / Well you know / You better free your mind instead". (Note the unpunctuated lyrical style, with period outside quotes. As far as I know, even WP:MOS hasn't addressed this topic yet.)

I know I've rambled for quite a bit, but this is nothing compared to the essays you'll find if you get involved in even the tiniest aspects of WP:MOS. To paraphrase Dante, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter there." It's better just to accept that hundreds (thousands?) of people have worked for many years on WP:MOS, and have come to a fairly stable compromise. Don't try to rock that boat unless you wish to make style revision a second career! ☺ ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your response. As a Canadian editor, I am somewhat sensitive to the vagaries of English writing style, buffeted as we are between two, shall we say, "expansive" English-speaking nations.  You assume that I believe that there is a "right" way to place commas and other punctuation. Well, yes and no.  I rather like the admonition on the introduction page of the MoS (ironically from the ''Chicago Manual of Style):

 * "Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity."

 * The MoS is a guideline, not a policy. Yet it is remarkably resistant to change, as you point out.  However, it is often not as authoritative as a good manual of style, like CMS.  Here's an interesting commentary on the problem of wayward commas from CMS Online:

 * Q. Apparently Americans enclose periods commas inside quotation marks, but do the British do it that way too?

 * A. In what is sometimes called the British style (see paragraph 6.10), only those punctuation points that appeared in the original material should be included within the quotation marks; all others follow the closing quotation marks. This system works best with single quotation marks. (The British tend to use double quotation marks only for quotations within quotations.) (Emphasis mine.)

 * From looking over your work, I note that you are a conscientious editor. If you've seen mine you will note that I also work hard at it.  I think that we who seek to improve Wikipedia should be able to do so for the most part without conflict with others on the same path.  So, I wish to reiterate my earlier request that you keep you hands off my commas.  I use it as a teaching tool for young folk who quote me the Wikipedia MoS.  We agree on many things, could we agree on that? Sunray 01:01, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship
Sunray: Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I am honoured that you and others think highly enough of my contributions here to support the nomination. The admin powers will enable me to patrol for vandals more effectively, amongst other things. I promise to use my new powers for good, and not to inflict the retribution on my enemies that they so richly deserve, as tempting as that may be. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin. Ground Zero 12:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?
You may be interested in this: Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Strangely the page seems to have disappeared. Oh well. Kaldari 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto that. Maurreen (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto again. It hasn't shown up on Requests for adminship yet.  I would hope that Jguk would spend a period of time correctly applying the guideline on consensus and the MoS guidelines on Eras before he accepted a nomination for admin.  It has been pointed out to him a number of times that he was not applying the MoS correctly and he has certainly proven to have difficulty abiding by consensus decisions on talk pages (ref. Talk: Common Era and Talk: Fu Hsi to cite only two examples).  In fact, given his six months campaign for BC/AD, it would be even better that he voluntarily commit to not making changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD for a like period of time and also commit to never again violating these policies.  Sunray 19:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, the chance that this will happen is about as great as a that of a snowball rolling right through hell (as are his chances of becomming an admin if I'm right about that). Sunray 19:47, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Sunray, I couldn't help but see this. I was a bit disappointed at your comments on CDThieme's talk page. I know we've had our differences on the BC v BCE issue, but, quite frankly, whether I'd had admin powers during it or not wouldn't have made any difference at all, and many admins did act on both sides of the debate without abuse of admin powers (I'm not sure how they would be useful here).

 * The only reason I'm even considering asking for the admin mop is that, especially now the cricket project is growing so fast, I come across a need for admin powers (such as deleting useless redirects or thwarting persistent vandals of cricket-related pages) than I did in the past. I've always been able to find someone to help in the past, but it would be more convenient not to. Do you think I'd abuse the admin powers if I had them, and if so, how? jguk 12:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Jguk: I have to call it the way I see it. I'm sure you cannot deny that you let your POV rule your actions in the BC/BCE matter.  Over 1,000 edits reverting other users is truly exceptional.  Several times your reverts were contrary to policy.  Several times I tried to engage you on talk pages about this.  You rarely have engaged in an open discussion on talk pages.  Starting with Talk: Common Era, where I first encountered you, on to the Persian pages and several pages on Chinese mythology or Taoist subjects you continued to lambaste us all with "think of the reader" as a reason for reverting changes to BCE/CE.  Where you were right, I supported you.  However, I saw you frequently acting contrary to policy, and I there I opposed you.

 * Through it all, I would say that I found you extremely heavy-handed (the example below about referring to Sortan as a sock puppet and troll is but one example). This is not the behaviour I would like to see in an admin.  It is my view that an admin should be cool-headed and evenhanded in applying policy.  You need to study the following policies and take them to heart: Civility, Assume good faith and above all the guideline  Consensus.  If you show evidence that you can do this, I will support you for admin.  Sunray 18:26, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Accusations of "troll"
[Copied from Jguk's talk page]: On more than one occasion I have seen you give edit summaries such as the following: "Sortan is a troll (see his user contributions) - revert on sight)." I've looked at his contributions and am unable to see what you mean.  I note that he has done a great deal of vandal patrolling and has obviously opposed you tit for tat in your BC/AD campaign.  Other than that, he has made edits on a variety of subjects.  Calling someone a troll is problematic.  It's really just name calling, isn't it?  Your accusations seem to me to not be in keeping with  Assume good faith and  Civility, but perhaps I've missed something.  Could you please explain? Sunray 00:30, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * There is considerable, I think overwhelming, evidence that the Sortan account is a sock puppet account used mainly to edit war and troll in favour of changes to BCE/CE notation, and indeed it was not me who pointed this out first: User:Dbachmann noted his suspicions on User talk:Sortan as early as 8 July.

 * After six anodyne edits, the Sortan account immediately stumbled across a date notation argument on the Jesus article. (Not a likely early edit for a newbie, but of its own not a hanging offence.) The next edits were to Elam - this was the first page that SouthernComfort changed after the ArbCom decision, and gave rise to much discussion. Why would an innocent account suddenly stumble on it?

 * Later the Sortan account, knowing full well what had been discussed early, made numerous other edits - often with misleading edit summaries and most of his edits after have been on the same topic. The account has similarly been used to stir up date notation trouble on other articles that are already stable.

 * This is the account of an established WP user who wants a sock puppet to hide behind greater anonymity and the freedom of that anonymity to edit war to stir up trouble. This is the action of a troll, and there is no reason to continue to have good faith in the Sortan account. Its positive contributions to the project are negligible. It is not just me and Dbachmann that have noticed it, see also the correspondence on Sortan’s talk page with Wiglaf.

 * I do not know why you are surprised by my conclusions. What would you think if an account with a similar profile was making edits in the opposite direction?, jguk 06:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The evidence you have presented is, at best, circumstantial. I see no proof of sockpuppetry.  It is one thing to suspect a sockpuppet, quite another to make accusations.  I would tend to take the individuals's contributions at face value.  Sortan has, no doubt agravated you as he has been inimicably opposed to your project.  But unless and until there is proof via some formal Wikipedia process, it is irrelevant, surely.  As to calling him "a troll."  As the article on that subject makes clear, to call someone a troll is simply an insult, like calling them "scum" or "riff-raff."  I think it would be wise to avoid it.  Would you be willing to cease referring to Sortan in these terms, Jguk?  Sunray 07:09, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not quite sure what you are looking for in the way of proof: the circumstantial evidence about Sortan being a sockpuppet is beyond reasonable doubt. Men have been hanged on less. As far as wikiprocess is concerned, most sockpuppets are identified through acclaim - for example, see the recent circumstances under which User:NoPuzzleStranger was blocked indefinitely.

 * I'm not quite sure what you mean about Sortan being inimicable opposed to my project - the only project I'm on is the Cricket WikiProject, and his only (albeit very marginal) interaction with that project is to support moving Bill O'Reilly (commentator) over the current Bill O'Reilly disambiguation page. Nothing really to get worked up about. However, although "troll" is a factual term meaning someone who deliberately makes controversial edits in the expectation of a response, and the Sortan account fits clearly within that definition, I would be willing to describe Sortan as a "disruptive sockpuppet" instead of "troll". May I trust you're also take up with Sortan the issue of his abusive language towards me? jguk 07:41, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You mention User:NoPuzzleStranger. That account went through a process and was blocked.  I'm not saying don't pursue a similar process, if you wish.  What I am saying is that until there has been some sort of due process, I don't think you should be justifying your edits by referring to someone as a "troll" or a "sockpuppet."  I would respond the same way to Sortan.  The project I was referring to is your BC/AD campaign.  At times you changed date notation despite a consensus amongst users on a particular talk page.  Sunray 08:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I will continue to refer to Sortan as a sockpuppet, as there's evidence proving this beyond reasonable doubt - it's only proper to warn others. But I'm happy to add further justification in the edit summaries if I happen to revert him again.

 * If you look at Sock puppet you will note that there is nothing illegal about a sock puppet per se. The main purpose of sock puppets is to stack voting results and this is not permitted.  Using sock puppets to circumvent policy (e.g. avoid a ban) is likewise verbotten.  Otherwise, a sock is judged by its behavior, like anyone else.  Unless there is a formal process that establishes not only that it is a sock puppet, but that the sock puppet has contravened policy, it is uncivil to refer to someone as a sock puppet.  It is thus wise to avoid referring to people as "sockpuppets" and "trolls," IMO.

The changes that I made to revert to BC/AD after others had changed them to BCE/CE notation were immediately after a very large vote on the subject rejected a proposal to change pages to BCE/CE notation. I was joined in supporting that community decision by others, most notably RickK and violetriga. SouthernComfort was knowingly trying to implement a failed proposal - of course he was going to be reverted. Also some of the consensuses you claim are a small majority amongst a very small number of participants - for instance, you argued there was a consensus that all Taoism related articles should use BCE/CE notation on the basis of there being two comments in favour of using BCE/CE notation on the Taoism article, and one against. This is not consensus. And anyway, the proposal for date notation discussions to happen on an article by article basis was not passed.

 * The guideline on consensus refers to ways of establishing consensus on talk pages. A two thirds majority is required for consensus.  Two out of three thus meets that requirement.  I try to stick to the rules.

 * No it doesn't. It identifies certain percentages that may be used as a gauge as to whether consensus is reached. Consensus (in the normal sense) requires there not to be too much dissent from anything - and certainly not widespread dissent. On a relatively non-controversial issue, where people are choosing mild preferences, it is ok to have smaller percentages: the vote will be generally accepted. Generally speaking the more controversial and bitter the dispute, the higher the percentages of support that are required - WP:Consensus is a guideline - the way I've just described it is a pragmatic way of interpreting it. The principle of "Votes are Evil" is probably more pertinent here, jguk 18:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The problem is that such an interpretation allows for completely subjective judgments. An admin cannot deviate invariably from guidelines.  The whole idea of guidelines is to provide guidance for the usual case.  They are guidelines because it is impossible to apply them in every case.  But an admin has to know exactly when he is applying them and when he is deviating.  Deviations, then, need to be justified on a case-by-case basis.  In practice, tabulating votes (e.g. VfD) is done with a very even hand.  I do likewise on talk pages because people have to have a guide to go by.  A sliding scale just makes folks mad.

Slrubenstein made the whole argument a lot more vicious by putting forward a purely religio-political argument, and steering all discussion away from other points. We've both been around long enough in this world to know that if you want to stir things up, start a discussion on religion or politics.

 * I agree the argument became highly charged.

This whole approach really lost touch with what we are doing: writing an encyclopaedia. When writing it is always important to think of your reader - being a good communicator means considering your audience and adapting your style and language to that reader. I work in a specialised area of UK tax law. I work with experts who know much more than me, and with juniors who are just beginning their careers and know nothing of tax law. I have clients who are tax experts, some who are accountants who don't want to know much about tax but want to learn something, and some who want to know nothing about tax - they just want to be told what they should do. I won't claim always to get it right - but I need adapt my language and style constantly. If I don't, I have confused colleagues or unhappy clients. I need to make sure that I convey my point in a way that gives my audience as little as work to do to understand it as possible. I work for my reader - I cannot expect my reader to work to understand what I say.

 * You have used that line "think of the reader" to justify your POV. I do not agree that BCE/CE is inconsiderate of the reader.  We obviously have different perspectives on this.  So I say: Let's just stick with the policies and guidelines.

 * My view is entirely "think of the reader". I have no POV here. I wouldn't be writing for an academic journal that always uses BCE/CE notation anyway, but I would certainly recommend going along with its practice to anyone submitting articles on it. It would be interesting to know whether you agree with the principle of "think of the reader" (even if you argue that thinking of the reader leads to a different conclusion here).

 * Come now. Your POV is not "think of the reader."  That isn't a POV, it is an interest, and one that I share.  Your POV is: "BCE/CE notation will not be understood by the reader and must not be used because it will cause confusion."   (Correct me if I've got that wrong).  Unfortunately, your POV has no basis in Wikipedia policy—the MoS simply says that either date notation may be used.

 * On the general point, remember that the policies and guidelines are useful, but are not rock-ribbed (and nor should they be). One reason why WP:Cricket is so successful is because the "rules" are bent around the edges. The aim is to present information in a way that will be read and will be interesting to the reader. I interpret WP:IAR, which is also a guideline, as meaning just that - we are not slaves to other policies and guidelines, although we do not ignore them willy-nilly either.

 * I've written a great deal of policy, so I know how policies and guidelines work. I've never said they are rock-ribbed.  However, when there are disagreements, it becomes necessary to go back to the guideline and apply it more stringently.  Otherwise things descend into chaos and Babel.

These are important points here. We are writing for a general worldwide audience - of all different backgrounds and knowledge. It's important that use language and style that they will understand - so we restrict the usage of jargon, and explain it where it is unavoidable; we write introductions that provide a useful lead in; we don't impose our personal preferences on them - eg we prefer a better understood word over a less well understood word. If we don't, our readers go elsewhere.

 * Again, while I agree with you that it is fundamentally important to think of the reader and I always try to write with the reader in mind, in an encyclopedia there are other considerations than readability. We cannot "dumb down" a complex matter, for example, as a broadsheet does.  Their mission is purely to sell papers.  In a worldwide encyclopedia, there are cross-cultural considerations which make it important to consider the perspective of a reader from another religion or culture.  That is why I think it is important for Buddhists, Taoists and other non-Christians to be able to use BCE/CE notation if they wish, as provided for in the current policies.

 * What you are doing is not allowing Buddhists, Taoist and other non-Christians to be able to read BCE/CE notation if they wish. To do that we would need to set up user preferences for BCE/CE notation (which I understand you eschew, although I'd be in favour of). You are forcing everyone to read BCE/CE notation. Of course, conversely, using BC/AD notation also forces everyone to read that. This leaves the question of what is the lesser evil. At this point the sheer numerical superiority of BC/AD throughout the world becomes pertinent - to do otherwise severely restricts the potential readership.

 * If it were possible to implement a technological change, there would still be a need (perhaps even a greater need) to explain what BCE/CE is (how else could the user adjust his settings). With respect to "numerical superiority" (in usage), that would be an argument for keeping outdated racist or sexist terms as well.  How would you justify that?  Language would never change if usage were the criterion.

 * Also, I disagree that thinking of the reader means we "dumb down" a complex matter. For example, why shouldn't the article on chromosomes explain to a general reader what they are and why they are important. OK, perhaps the article may want have more complex info in there - but can't that go towards the end of the article, once the layman has had a chance to appreciate what you're going on about. I also believe strongly that most things can be explained to the layman. Einstein did it with his best-selling Theory of Special Relativity. Hawking did it with his Brief History of Time. I do it every day with complex UK tax law. This isn't dumbing down - all the information of the complex version is preserved - but it is presented in a fashion that many more people can understand.

 * Here I agree with you. I have written for various audiences throughout my life.  I know how to make an article more readable.  That is what I do around here.  I just don't see the relevance of that argument when we come to BCE/CE.

This whole BC v BCE thing is but a very small subset of this. We have one generally understood term - and one that does not enjoy the same global reach amongst the general public (by a long, long way). We have jargon terms that academic historians may be familiar with, but the general public will not be - so we choose to avoid them, particularly when there are simple enough ways to use terminology that everyone will understand. I appreciate here that you may be more accustomed to using BCE than BC, but I would ask that you accept that amongst the worldwide general public you are in a very small minority, and that therefore when writing for the worldwide general public you change your style (or at least allow others to change it). Failure to think of the reader and appeal to a wide audience makes far too many of Wikipedia's articles inaccessible to the average potential reader as it is, jguk 08:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It is not about "the general public" here. It is about the readership of a particular article in Wikipedia.  Take Buddhism, for example.  A reader who is interested in that subject may not know the terms BCE/CE.  However, it really is not hard to figure out.  If one is able to grasp the concepts in the Buddhism article (which after all, is written for a literate reader), one will easily be able to understand the use of BCE/CE upon looking it up.  If one is a Buddhist, one may well appreciate the courtesy extended by not using the European/Christian terms.  Looking at it another way: The terms BC/AD are well established worldwide because of European colonialism.  Since the middle of the last century, many cultures have thrown off the yoke of colonialism.  We should not impose aspects of that colonial legacy when other cultures or religions do not want them.  That is my perspective on using BCE/CE. Sunray 17:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe strongly that the writer should work hard to explain things to his reader - the reader should (ideally) have to do no work at all. It doesn't matter how much effort it takes the reader to work something out - it should be as straightforward as possible - and in this particular case there's no need to complicated the issue at all. There are also the points that introducing the BCE/CE notation hasn't gone down too well in a number of places and that people prefer language that is familiar to them over language which is not so familiar to them.

 * Here we differ somewhat. You say "the reader should (ideally) have to do no work at all."  That is true for ad and newspaper writing.  It is less true in an encyclopedia.  People come to an encyclopedia to learn.  Learning requires effort.  People who are in that mode are able to pick things up relatively quickly (following links, etc).  Our job is to facilitate that process, not to feed them pap.  So there can be a degree of difficulty.  Why do certain articles have this different date notation?  Hummmm.

 * Finally, this has nothing to do with colonialism. (After all, without colonialism no-one outside England would be speaking English!) This has nothing to do with "impos[ing] aspects of...colonial legacy when other cultures or religions do not want them". Most people worldwide are just not concerned about whether "BC" and "AD" has any meaning other than as date notation. Indeed, it is an etymological fallacy to claim that they do have other meaning. As you know, things like this are seen as political correctness, which, although it has made a few inroads outside the United States, is opposed widely elsewhere in the world.

 * I've been interested in the opposition to the terms BCE/CE, as I am in the use of the term "political correctness." That was why I was querying you awhile back ("is it a religious thing?").  I'm none the wiser.  However, I would suggest that the people who are resistant to these sorts of etymological shifts are probably not our readers.  They would tend to be uninterested in learning much.

 * You're arguing your political viewpoint above, so I'm sure you'll allow me a small space to do the same (even though this is an aside that in my mind has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand):

 * As far as I can see, political correctness does do more harm than good - the greatest evil in arguing for changes in language and having so called "positive discrimination" is that far too many people think that is enough. For all of its hold on certain parts of America, blacks are still economically poorest in America by a long, long way; ghettoes persist; the list of poorest states today is not too dissimilar to the list 20, 30, 40 years ago. Women continue to get discriminated against. The problem with PC is that it it hides the real problems - people think by changing their- without it America might have to actually do something about the discrimination inherent in its system. Compare this to the UK, which is far from perfect itself - but at least we've faced up to some of the key problems. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry, controversially at the time, concluded that the Metropolitan Police was "institutionally racist". This finding forced the Police to confront the issue for real, leading to many benefits for the whole of the London community. Had it gone instead for a "politically correct" approach, I'm quite sure our policing methods would be stuck in the early 1990s, jguk 18:37, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I find your initial comments in the above two paragraphs somewhat judgmental. You begin by assuming that I am arguing my political viewpoint.  How?  Because I spoke of colonialism?  I was simply stating a well-accepted set of facts along with some anthropoligical interpretation.  It is only political in the sense that all things are political which so obvious as to not need to be said.  I emphatically agree with you that the plight of the blacks in America is a product of systemic racism that cannot be eradicated within a generation or two by changing the language.  Your example of the Metropolitan Police illustrates how human society goes for the quick fix and bandaid solution rather than confronting the causes of social problems.  However, the term "PC" is simply an ephitet (like sock puppet).  It should be used in moderation.

 * I see the Wikipedia project as being to foster communications and learning for all the world's peoples. I am pleased that you and I are communicating (I would even venture to say "communicating better").  I don't expect you to change your POV on BC/BCE, but if we can agree on how to apply the policies and keep the communications lines open, perhaps it won't be as serious a problem. Sunray 22:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sortan
You advise Sortan on his talk page that "No action [is] necessary at this point". What action would there be in mind anyway - especially as Sortan is already well-versed in WP practice as he's been here under a different name for many months, jguk 19:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't think of an action either. Perhaps I should have said: For your information only.  What was in my mind was that I didn't want him to get excited and jump into the conversation I was having with you.  Sunray 20:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sunray/Archive04


text:
User:Blujay

my first test... Go: ABC - abc

--Blujay 22:24, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User:Blujay


text:
User talk:Blujay

discussion test

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Rob Church Talk 22:24, 28 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

title: User talk:Blujay


text:
Sincronizada

The quesadilla sincronizada (, "synchronized quesadilla") is a flour tortilla-based sandwich made by placing ham, vegetables (like tomatoes, onion, etc.) and a portion of Oaxaca cheese (or any type of cheese) between two flour tortillas. They are then grilled or even lightly fried until the cheese melts and the tortillas become crispy, cut into halves or wedges and served, usually with salsa and pico de gallo, avocado or guacamole on top.

They are frequently confused with plain quesadillas, due to their resemblance to "quesadillas" sold in Mexico (U.S. quesadillas are usually made with flour tortillas rather than molded from masa in the Mexican style). Note however that despite the fact that it looks almost the same as a quesadilla, it is considered a separate dish. The main difference between the real quesadilla and the sincronizadas is the obligatory inclusion of ham in the dish and the main ingredient used to make the tortilla (wheat flour instead of corn flour, masa harina). A quesadilla is made of a single folded and filled flour tortilla, while the sincronizada is prepared like a sandwich.

Ingredients could vary between Oaxaca cheese, Manchego cheese and different types of ham. The sincronizada is sometimes consumed alone, but in most regions of Mexico it is common to add a regional sour cream, salsa or guacamole as topping to make a richer flavor. cheese, beef fajita meat and avocado and Monterey Jack cheese instead of the traditional Oaxacan one.

Sincronizadas are commonly consumed in the evening, as a component of a light merienda.

title: Sincronizada


text:
Florian Mayer

Florian Mayer (born 5 October 1983) is a German former professional tennis player.

Mayer reached his career-high singles ranking of world No. 18 in June 2011. Also in 2011, Mayer won his first ATP Tour title after four previous defeats in ATP finals.

Mayer competed at the 2004 Summer Olympics. At the 2004 Wimbledon Championships, Mayer reached the quarter-finals, which is his best Grand Slam result to date. He received the ATP Newcomer of the Year award in 2004. Eight years later, Mayer made his second Grand Slam quarter-final, once again at Wimbledon.

The biggest win of his career came at the 2011 Shanghai Rolex Masters when he upset twenty-time Grand Slam champion Rafael Nadal in the round of 16.

Mayer was known for his unorthodox style of play. He had a long backswing on his forehand and backhand and used many different slices and spin on his backhand side. He was also known for his jumping backhand dropshots which caught many of his opponents on the backfoot.

Mayer retired from professional tennis after the 2018 US Open.

2009
Florian made a return from injury reaching the final of the Nouméa Challenger but losing to Brendan Evans. Mayer then qualified for the main draw of the Australian Open by beating Sergey Bubka, Blaž Kavčič and Amer Delić. There he beat Lamine Ouahab in the first round, and then lost to Juan Martín del Potro in the second round.

2010
Mayer reached the third round at the 2010 Australian Open, defeating Philipp Petzschner and Viktor Troicki. He then lost to Juan Martín del Potro in four sets. At Wimbledon in 2010, Mayer beat 11th seed Marin Čilić in straight sets to reach the second round, where he defeated Mardy Fish in four sets. He then lost to Lu Yen-hsun in the third round. He also reached the quarterfinals at the Mercedes Cup in Stuttgart, losing to Gaël Monfils, and the semifinal in Hamburg, losing to eventual champion Andrey Golubev. At the Shanghai Rolex Masters, he lost to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga in the third round, after defeating Kevin Anderson and Mikhail Youzhny in the first two rounds. Mayer reached the final at the If Stockholm Open, after beating Jarkko Nieminen in a tight semifinal, saving a match point. Mayer also beat world No. 5 Robin Söderling and two-time Wimbledon quarterfinalist Feliciano López en route to the final, where he lost 4–6, 3–6, to the 16-Grand Slam titles holder Roger Federer.

He went 23–18 on the season and earned $513,955.

2011
Mayer started the new season in style. In preparation for the Australian Open, he reached the quarterfinals of the Brisbane International and the semifinals of the Sydney International. At the first Grand Slam tournament of the season in Melbourne, Mayer surprisingly defeated Doha finalist Nikolay Davydenko in four sets, only to lose against Japanese Kei Nishikori in the second round. Two weeks later, he came through to his second semifinals of the year in Zagreb. On his way to this stage, he defeated top seed Marin Čilić, 6–3, 6–4. He lost the semifinal against countryman Michael Berrer. With this result, he was the new German no. 1 in the ATP ranking. At the 2011 BMW Open in Munich, Mayer reached his fourth career final. He was again not able to capture his maiden ATP World Tour title, after losing to Nikolay Davydenko in three sets. Two days after this loss, he managed to beat Viktor Troicki in three sets in the first round of the Mutua Madrid Open. He had to retire in the second round against Thomaz Bellucci. He rose to a new career-high rank of no. 28.

Mayer reached the quarterfinals of the Italian Open in Rome. After three straight-set wins, Mayer could not keep up the momentum against Andy Murray, after having won the first set. He went on to lose, 6–1, 1–6, 1–6.

Again he rose to a new career-high rank of No. 21.

By winning three out of three matches at the World Team Cup in Düsseldorf, Mayer was the key player in the German team to capture the trophy for the fifth time. He improved to no. 19. The German, however, could not overcome the second round of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, losing in fourth sets in both cases against Alejandro Falla and Xavier Malisse, as he did in the Australian Open. In addition, he lost his Davis Cup quarterfinal match against Richard Gasquet, despite serving for the match in the third set.

Two weeks later, he reached the Hamburg ATP 500 quarterfinals, losing in straight tiebreaks to third seed Nicolás Almagro. However, in the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 of Montreal and Cincinnati, he lost in first round to Richard Gasquet and Ivo Karlović, respectively. Mayer then reached the third round in the US Open (won to Mannarino and Lisnard, but lost in the round of 32 to fifth seed Ferrer), to achieve his best Grand Slam result of the year. He won his first title in Bucharest, defeating Pablo Andújar in the final 6–3, 6–1. On 13 October 2011, Mayer defeated world No. 2 Rafael Nadal in a brilliant display of tennis 7–6, 6–3.

2012
Mayer withdrew from the Australian Open due to injury. He couldn't win consecutively until the Miami Masters, where he defeated Ivan Dodig and Indian Wells finalist John Isner. He then lost in the fourth round to Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

Mayer reached the Wimbledon quarterfinals for the first time since 2004 Wimbledon. In the quarterfinals, he lost to top seed Novak Djokovic.

2013
Mayer reached quarter-final of Shanghai Masters and defeated French Open finalist David Ferrer.

2014
Mayer first played in Doha. He defeated Michał Przysiężny, then third seeded Andy Murray who returned from injury layoff, then Victor Hănescu who upset Fernando Verdasco. He then lost to Gaël Monfils in the semifinals. He reached the fourth round for the first time at the Australian Open. He defeated 14th seed Mikhail Youzhny in the second round, then 20th seed Jerzy Janowicz in straight sets in the third round. In the fourth round, he was defeated by 3rd seed David Ferrer in four sets.

2016
Mayer won the Gerry Weber Open in Halle, defeating Andreas Seppi in the quarterfinal, world No. 7 Dominic Thiem in the semifinal and Alexander Zverev in the final, for his first victory in his career on German soil and his first victory at an ATP 500 tournament. Mayer won the final 6–2, 5–7, 6–3. As a result of this victory, Mayer's ranking rose 112 places from 192 to 80.

2017
Mayer got to the final at the 2017 German Open in Hamburg where he lost to namesake Leonardo Mayer in three sets.

2018
Mayer played his last match on the ATP tour at the 2018 US Open, losing to Borna Ćorić in four sets in the first round.

Playing style
Mayer is an all-court player known for his unique and creative style of play. He has an unusually long take-back on both his forehand and two-handed backhand and generally hits more top-spin than flat on both wings. Despite his height, his groundstrokes and serve lack power, but are consistent and unpredictable. He uses a variety of spins on both wings to mix his shots up and hit drop-shots. He is well known for his double-handed backhand slice, similar to that of Fabrice Santoro and Jimmy Connors, and often pulls off jumping backhands and jumping slice drop-shots which catch his opponents off guard. His drop-shots are particularly effective on clay and grass, where he has had most success. Despite having a weaker, top-spin serve, Mayer occasionally serve and volleys and is also known for his two-handed backhand cutting volley. He also often uses a chip and charge tactic during points to finish points off. This makes him unpredictable and tricky to play against.

Mayer's biggest weaknesses are his lack of match consistency and fitness, having had inconsistent results throughout his career and a relatively small build. He has also suffered from numerous injuries throughout his career, most notably his groin injury in 2015 that prevented him from playing for more than a year. However, he has since made a comeback, winning his second title at the 2016 Halle Open.

title: Florian Mayer


text:
Talk:Battalion Wars

Sequel
This game has been announced for Nintendo Revolution and needs to be updated. I don't want to cock it up, just thought i'd let someone know.

- Sp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.61.81 (talk • contribs)

Anyone here in the mood to add information on the actual gameplay to the article? This is a game article after all.
 * No problem.--Arima 07:20, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

does anyone else think the long list of units is a bit pointless? Jimbob1630 19:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Could someone give the Link to the Unit List since it was moved? --Arima 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Battalion_Wars

I'm not sure about the Reaction section; it's probably POV. -- gakon5 [[User_talk:gakon5|(talk)]]

Need more info
If one is to place a "Spoiler Alert", the article must have something a person starting a game would not know.

I shall do the honors of adding storyline specific information to the article. Another must take up the task of the actual Gameplay. That is, unless you want this article to remain a dry, barren shell.

-Seurat. (Author of last post.)

 * More information is fine, but you must pick the information you wish to include carefully. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and WP:CVG/GL will be useful reads. Ong elvin 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Images?
Why are the images posted as links? Are they copyrighted or something?

--Sam Green 19:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

 * If I recall correctly those images were added by an anon, who couldn't upload them. If we can clarify the copyright status, we could upload them and have them shown in the article properly. Having said that, we don't want to get carried away adding images of units or we'll have more images then text. -- Steel 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed them for the time being. -- Steel 19:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Speculation
Big chunks of this page are speculation and original research, which is a WP no-no. Espect it to reduce drastically in size shortly. Geoff B 19:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, done, which involved deleting entire sections in some cases. Still not happy with it, even with the listcruft, game advice, speculation and OR reduced, but I'll leave it a while, see if anyone else has anything to say.  Geoff B 09:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This game has already been released, how can there be "original reaserch"?

Why don't you find out what original research is before asking how there can be any? Whether the game has been released or not is irrelevant. 09:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Resource management
How is resource management handled in this game? The reason I ask is because I'm having trouble figuring out whether this is an RTS or an RTT (real-time tactics) game. SharkD 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no resource gathering, it is primarily combat based and some might say it is more offa shoot em up game than a strategy game. Phalanxia 20:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also
The Heavy tank looks like a Mammoth Tank without Missiles, 4 treads and no auto healing system.(Optimus the F22 Raptor (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC))

RTT's Fact-tag
I don't know anything about this game, but why is the "RTT" denomination fact-tagged, but not the "third-person shooter"? Miqademus (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the tagging of one necessitate the tagging of the other? Do you believe that the description of "third person shooter" is sufficiently cited? If not you should tag it too. Alastairward (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that you're actually selectively tagging terms? I mean, letting certain terms "slip" while "cracking down" on specific others? Miqademus (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I just don't have time to do everything everywhere. You on the other hand are free to tag the other information there, just because I don't doesn't mean you can't. Alastairward (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battalion Wars. 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/20120307084721/http://palgn.com.au/3895/updated-australian-release-list-13-2-06/ to http://palgn.com.au/3895/updated-australian-release-list-13-2-06/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130706063304/http://www.gamespot.com/battalion-wars/reviews/battalion-wars-review-6133879/ to http://www.gamespot.com/battalion-wars/reviews/battalion-wars-review-6133879/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Community section
I'm not a confident enough editor to simply make any changes myself, but it seems odd to lead the article's body with a community section advertising a Discord server (complete with a few punctuation errors). These sections seem to more commonly sit at the end of an article, if they are present at all, and is it poor form to direct people to a Discord server from Wikipedia?

208.4.80.130 (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I took the liberty of removing the section, as I believe it violates Wikipedia's rules on self-promotion. Additionally, if the section is re-added in the future, consider placing it according to the style guide for articles about video games. Olchris (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Battalion Wars


text:
Remains (Annihilator album)

Remains is the sixth studio album by Canadian heavy metal band Annihilator, released on July 21, 1997 by Music For Nations and CMC International. All instruments were performed by Jeff Waters following the dissolution of the previous line-up. However, John Bates and Dave Steele make an appearance on "No Love" on guitars and vocals respectively, with Steele also appearing on "Wind". The album features a more industrial-oriented sound and also features a drum machine. Remains was the last album for 18 years (until Suicide Society) to feature lead vocals by Waters on an Annihilator album.

Personnel

 * Jeff Waters – guitars, bass, vocals and drum programming
 * John Bates – some guitar on "No Love"
 * Dave Steele – some vocals on "No Love" and "Wind"

title: Remains (Annihilator album)


text:
James Beaumont Neilson

James Beaumont Neilson (22 June 1792 – 18 January 1865) was a Scottish inventor whose hot-blast process greatly increased the efficiency of smelting iron.

Life
He was the son of the engineer Walter Neilson, a millwright and later engine wright, who had been a partner of David Mushet in Calder Ironworks, Glasgow. He was born in Shettleston and was trained as an engine wright. After the failure of a colliery at Irvine he was appointed foreman of the Glasgow Gasworks in 1817 at the age of 25. Five years later he became the manager and engineer there, a position he held for 40 years.

While trying to solve a problem with a blast furnace at Wilsontown Ironworks, Neilson realized that the fuel efficiency of the furnace could be increased by blowing it with hot air, rather than cold air, by passing it through a red-hot vessel. Experiments were continued at Clyde Iron Works, leading to his forming a partnership with Charles Macintosh and others to exploit it. Patents were obtained for the system in 1828.

Experimentation showed that a temperature of 600°F reduced fuel consumption to a third of that with cold blast, and enabled raw coal to be used instead of coke, with a further cost saving. It also enabled the exploitation of black band ironstone, the use of which had previously proved unprofitable. In the early 1830s. Neilson successfully sued those who adopted his methods without licence. After that, Neilson and his partners licensed it widely at one shilling per ton iron made, a level low enough to discourage evasion. The royalties were initially low, but by 1840 were producing £30,000 per year from 58 ironmasters.

Certain infringers were intransigent. Between 1839 and the expiry of the patent in 1842 a considerable number of proceedings were brought. Neilson v Baird was heard in the Court of Session in 1843, in a trial lasting 10 days and costing £40,000. Further proceedings against Baird ended in the award of damages of £160,000.

Neilson retired from Glasgow Gasworks in 1847. He bought an estate on Bute. Later he bought an estate at Queenshill, near Kirkcudbright, where he died. He is buried in the family mausoleum at Tongland Kirkyard. His son, Walter Montgomerie Neilson, erected Neilson's Monument to his memory on the hill at Queenshill in 1883.

Both in Glasgow and near Kirkcubright, he founded institutions for the education of working men.

William Neilson, James's brother, founded the Glasgow engineers and locomotive manufacturers Neilson and Company, in 1836, partly financed by James. James's son Walter took over the running of the firm in 1843.

title: James Beaumont Neilson


text:
Talk:Remains (Annihilator album)

Fair use rationale for Image:AnnihilatorRemains.jpg
Image:AnnihilatorRemains.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Remains (Annihilator album)


text:
English Folk Song Suite

English Folk Song Suite is one of English composer Ralph Vaughan Williams' most famous works. It was first published for the military band as Folk Song Suite and its premiere was given at Kneller Hall on 4 July 1923, conducted by Lt Hector Adkins. The piece was then arranged for full orchestra in 1924 by Vaughan Williams' student Gordon Jacob and published as English Folk Song Suite. The piece was later arranged for British-style brass band in 1956 by Frank Wright and published as English Folk Songs Suite. All three versions were published by Boosey & Hawkes; note the use of three different titles for the three different versions. The suite uses the melodies of nine English folk songs, six of which were drawn from the collection made by Vaughan Williams’ friend and colleague Cecil Sharp.

Structure
The suite consists of three movements: March, Intermezzo and another March. The first march is called "Seventeen Come Sunday", the Intermezzo is subtitled "My Bonny Boy" and the final movement is based on four "Folk Songs from Somerset".

It originally had a fourth movement, "Sea Songs", which was played second, but the composer removed it after the first performance and published it separately, with his own orchestration.

March: "Seventeen Come Sunday"
Seventeen Come Sunday opens after a four-bar introduction with the principal melody – the folk song "Seventeen Come Sunday" (Roud 277) – played by the woodwind section (flutes in orchestrated version). This melody is repeated, and the woodwind is joined by the brass (violins in orchestrated version). The phrasing is irregular – the melody lasts for thirteen bars. Vaughan Williams appears to have used two alternative versions of this song from Cecil Sharp's collection, one from the Traveller Kathleen Williams in the Forest of Dean, and the other from his prolific source Lucy White of Hambridge, Somerset.

This melody is followed by "Pretty Caroline" (Roud 1448) as a quiet air for solo clarinet or solo cornet (clarinet only in orchestrated version), which is also repeated. This tune was derived from a recording made in 1908 by Ella Mary Leather from Ellen Powell of Westhope, Herefordshire, using a phonograph loaned to her by Vaughan Williams. He later transcribed the song from the recording, which is publicly available online.

A third melody, "Dives and Lazarus" (Roud 177, Child 56) then enters in the lower instruments. This tune comes from the collection of Vaughan Williams himself: he notated the song "The Red Barn", set to a variant of the well-known "Dives and Lazarus" melody, from a Mr John Whitby in Norfolk in 1905. The arrangement here is particularly interesting for having a 6/8 rhythm played as a counterpoint by the upper woodwinds, against the straight 2/4 rhythm of the saxophones and brasses. This third theme is repeated, then leads straight back to the second theme. Finally, the first theme is repeated in a Da Capo al Coda. The form of this movement can be represented by A–B–C–B–A (Arch form).

Intermezzo: "My Bonny Boy"
"My Bonny Boy" (Roud 293) opens with a solo in F Dorian for the oboe (sometimes doubled or played by solo cornet) on the tune of the folk song of the same name, which is repeated by the low-register instruments. Midway through the movement, a Poco Allegro begins on "Green Bushes" (Roud 1040), first sounded by a piccolo, E-flat clarinet, and oboe in a minor harmonic context, then repeated by the lower brass with major harmony. The first melody is played again in fragmented form before the close of the movement.

Vaughan Williams noted on his score that "My Bonny Boy" was taken from the book English County Songs while the "Green Bushes" melody seems to have been adapted from two versions collected by Cecil Sharp, one in the Dorian and one in the Mixolydian mode, the modal ambiguity being reflected in the composer's harmonization.

March: "Folk Songs from Somerset"
"Folk Songs from Somerset" is based on the melodies of four folk songs from the eponymous collection published in five volumes by Cecil Sharp with Charles Marson, based on fieldwork they had carried out in the county during the early 1900s. It opens with a light introduction of four measures before a jaunty major melody, "Blow Away the Morning Dew" (Roud 11, Child 112) collected from Lucy White and Lucy Hooper in Hambridge in 1903, is introduced on solo cornet (clarinet in orchestration). This melody is then dovetailed around the band/orchestra before finishing with a fortissimo reprise. A second melody in the Aeolian mode, "High Germany" (Roud 904), from Mrs Lock of Mulcheney Ham then takes over. This is played in the tenor and lower register with trombones prominent, while the remaining instruments provide an on-beat chordal accompaniment.

As this second melody dies away, the original melody is heard once again with a tutti reprise. This leads into the trio, with a key change and a time change to 6/8, introducing a more delicate modal air played by the woodwind with a light accompaniment. In the past this melody has been identified erroneously as "The Trees They Do Grow High" (Roud 31), but more recent research has found a much closer correspondence with the song "Whistle, Daughter, Whistle" (Roud 1570), as sung by Walter Locock of Martock. This melody continues until the time signature changes back to the original 2/4, with the entry of a robust major melody, John Barleycorn (Roud 164), originally taken down by Sharp from Robert Pope of Minehead. This enters in the lower instruments (trombones and double basses in orchestrated version) while the cornets play decorative features above. The trio is then repeated in full before a D.C. is reached and the first two themes are revisited. The form of this movement can be represented by A–B–A. (ternary form)

Original 1923 concert band version

 * E-flat flute and piccolo, concert flute and piccolo, E-flat clarinet, solo B-flat clarinet, ripieno 1st B-flat clarinet, 2nd B-flat clarinet, 3rd B-flat clarinet, E-flat alto clarinet, B-flat bass clarinet, oboes and C clarinets, 1st bassoon, 2nd bassoon, E-flat alto saxophone, B-flat tenor saxophone, E-flat baritone saxophone, B-flat bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet, 1st B-flat cornets, 2nd B-flat cornets, B-flat trumpets, 1st and 2nd horns in F (E-flat in the score), 3rd and 4th horns in F (E-flat in the score), 1st trombone, 2nd trombone, bass trombone, B-flat baritone, euphonium, basses, timpani, drums (cymbals, bass drum, snare drum, triangle).

The suite was published in 1923 by Boosey & Hawkes as Folk Song Suite.

The part titled "concert flute and piccolo", although singular, requires at least two players since the flute and piccolo parts are simultaneous for much of the suite, and the final movement includes split parts. Other parts that require two players are the oboes and B-flat trumpets. The E-flat clarinet part has divisis in the final movement only, most of which is already doubled in the solo/first B-flat clarinet voice, making the second E-flat clarinet not entirely necessary. Solo and 1st B-flat cornets are printed on one part (originally titled "1st cornet"), but one player is required for solo and one for 1st. The part for B-flat baritone is actually for a baritone saxhorn, no longer present in the military band (not the euphonium) and this part disappears from later editions of the set, with the only evidence being cued notes on the euphonium part.

2008 revised concert band version

 * Concert flute and piccolo, oboe, E-flat clarinet, solo B-flat clarinet, 1st B-flat clarinet, 2nd B-flat clarinet, 3rd B-flat clarinet, E-flat alto clarinet, B-flat bass clarinet, 1st bassoon, 2nd bassoon, E-flat alto saxophone, B-flat tenor saxophone, E-flat baritone saxophone, B-flat bass saxophone and contrabass clarinet, solo and 1st B-flat cornets, 2nd B-flat cornet, B-flat trumpets, 1st and 2nd horns in F, 3rd and 4th horns in F, 1st trombone, 2nd trombone, bass trombone, euphonium, tuba, string bass, 1st and 2nd percussion (timpani, cymbals, bass drum, snare drum, triangle).

Boosey & Hawkes published a revised edition of the piece in 2008. This edition features a computer-engraved full score and parts, incorporating corrections to engraving errors evident in the original edition. Other changes include the addition of rehearsal numbers to the score and parts, the titles of the folk songs added where they occur in the music, the horns notated in F in the score instead of in E-flat, the separation of the string bass from the tuba into its own part, and the percussion split into two parts.

1924 orchestra version

 * 2 flutes (2nd doubling piccolo), oboe, 2 B-flat clarinets, bassoon, 2 horns in F, 2 B-flat trumpets, 2 trombones, timpani, percussion (cymbals, bass drum, side drum, triangle), strings (violins, violas, cellos, and double basses).

The suite was arranged for full orchestra by Gordon Jacob, one of Vaughan Williams' pupils, and published in 1924 by Boosey & Hawkes as English Folk Song Suite.

1956 brass band version

 * E-flat soprano cornet, solo B-flat cornet, ripieno B-flat cornet and flugelhorn (one part, two players), 2nd B-flat cornet, 3rd B-flat cornet, solo E-flat horn, 1st E-flat horn, 2nd E-flat horn, 1st B-flat baritone, 2nd B-flat baritone, 1st B-flat trombone, 2nd B-flat trombone, bass trombone, B-flat euphonium, E-flat bass, B-flat bass, drums (side drum, bass drum, cymbals and triangle), Timpani.

The suite was arranged for Brass Band by Frank Wright and published by Boosey & Hawkes in 1956 as English Folk Songs Suite (this follows the orchestral version in adding 'English' to the title but it also pluralises 'Songs'). The music is transposed down (by a perfect fourth) presumably to make it fit more comfortably within the register of the brass band. The arrangement uses the standard British brass band scoring for 25 brass players and 2/3 percussionists (see British brass band for details of transpositions and numbers of players per part). Rehearsal numbers were added to the score and parts but the individual folk tunes remain unnamed. This edition remains a staple of the Brass Band repertoire.

title: English Folk Song Suite