text:
Tulipa turkestanica

Tulipa turkestanica, the Turkestan tulip, is a species of tulip native to Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and possibly Xinjiang ). It was first described by Eduard August von Regel in 1873 as a variety of T. sylvestris, then elevated to full species status two years later.

Description
Tulipa turkestanica is a herbaceous, bulbous perennial growing 10 cm to 15 cm tall, with 2–4 thin glaucous leaves up to 15 cm long on each stem. The margins and tips have a pinkish colour. The leathery bulb is bright reddish-brown and has a hairy tunic. Each plant produces between one and twelve star-shaped flowers, grouped in a raceme. The flowers are ivory white to pinkish red, with a yellow to orange basal blotch, which extends to about a third of the flower. The backs of the outer tepals are greyish red with a whitish fringe and much wider than the inner tepals, which have a thin, green line on the middle of their outside. The filaments are orange, and the anthers are dark violet or yellow with a violet tip, which distinguishes it from T. biflora that has very similar flowers but yellow anthers. It is also slightly smaller and flowers slightly earlier. The flowers only open in direct sunlight. The smell is often described as unpleasant. In the wild, it flowers between March and May, depending on the altitude.

Distribution
The Turkestan tulip is found in the Pamir Alai and Tien Shan; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkestan, Iran and Dzungaria in Northwest China. It grows on stony slopes, river margins and rocky ledges between 1800 and 2500 m asl.

Cultivation and uses
Tulipa turkestanica is an ornamental plant often grown in rock gardens. It needs full sun. In England, it flowers in the middle of March. As other tulips of the Eriostemenes group, Tulipa turkestanica cannot be crossed with garden tulips.

Tulipa turkestanica has received the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit.

title: Tulipa turkestanica


text:
Talk:Japanese beer

Start?
The article states that Japanese beer "had its start during the Edo Period". The Edo Period page defines it as 1603 to 1868. Can we be slightly more precise? This is three centuries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.76.94 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Order by production volume
It only makes sense to order the breweries by production volume if you also state what the production volume is, otherwise it just looks like a random ordering to most readers. --DannyWilde 02:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The production volume changes from year to year, but as far as I know, the ranking of the top five has been relatively stable for the past several years. Unless someone decides to make a more comprehensive list, it is probably sufficient just to note 'in order by production volume' in the article.  The American breweries article doesn't show the production volume either.  --Dforest 03:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why a list of external links needs to be ordered by production volume - I only put Asahi before Kirin originally because of alphabetical order. Anyway, as you say, unless the list gets very long it's not so important. --DannyWilde 09:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comparing to the Reinheitsgebot
Comparing Japanese beer regulations to the German Reinheitsgebot is relevant because it is a standard known worldwide, one of the oldest consumer protection laws still in use (although technically, it has been superceded by the Provisional German Beer Law), and particularly because Japan has a history of emulating German beer culture. --Dforest 03:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If there is a reason for comparing to the German system, then make that reason clear in the article itself. If the Japanese system emulates the German system, then it is a minor miracle that you would keep on and on removing the words "similar to" from the article. In this case, you left the sentence with a trailing comma. --DannyWilde 13:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Likewise, if there is a reason for comparing to the US and UK systems, that should be made clear in the article itself. Dforest 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Guys, even comparing Japanese h**se p** to German beer is offensive to me as a German. You don't know how Germans in Japan suffer. -- Mkill 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I used to have a friend called Erwin who seemed to like Japanese beer, he drank it by the crateful (that is a 20 bottle crate). He was from Bavaria, and apparently he was named after Erwin Rommel. The problem with the article is that the section on German beer has somehow got totally disconnected from the thread of the discussion. There is just a sudden jump from talking about Japanese beer, then there is a another sentence "this is totally different from German beer which is blah blah blah". Originally I wrote that the regulations were "similar to" German ones, which may be wrong, but if it's wrong, and Japanese beer regulations aren't similar, then I think it's obvious that the section should be deleted completely, since the German regulations are basically not relevant to a discussion of Japanese beer. If they are similar, then the article should say how and why they are so. --DannyWilde 03:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the right place to compare different beers anyway, just leaving it out is the best idea. This article should focus on listing beer brands, describing brewery techniques, and stating facts about the beer industry. On taste, we won't achieve NPOV anyway. - Concerning your friend Erwin: Well, of course Germans drink Japanese beer anyway, because German beer is impossible to pay for in Japan in larger quantities; who wants to pay 1000 yen for just one beer in Bernd's Bier Bar in Tokyo Roppongi? That doesn't mean people don't crave for German beer anyway. The second problem is that Japan tends to turn some gaijins into alcoholics. -- Mkill 12:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue is not comparing two different beers, but contrasting Japanese beer law with the original beer purity law, the Reinheitsgebot, which is still a strong tradition in Germany.  There is no doubt that Japan considers Germany as a role model for its beer. Michael Jackson once said "The notion that all good beer comes from Germany is very strong in Japan."   Regarding Japanese beer regulations, in a sense they can be said to emulate the German system because both are based on purity of ingredients. However the Japanese system allows 33% of ingredients that are commonly considered adjuncts: rice, corn, sorghum, potato, starch, and sugar. Dforest 14:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Why don't you say that in the article then? I just can't believe it. You keep fouling the article up, and then trying to justify it on the talk page. If the German beer is relevant, the article itself should say why it's relevant. Instead, you keep on removing any attempt to say why it is relevant from the article, then writing all this on the talk page. Either put the reason why it's relevant in the article or leave the statement out. I've said this about four times now, and if you still are not going to take any notice, but just go on and on, then so be it. I will simply remove your words on and on in the same manner that you seem to prefer. --DannyWilde 07:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Beer purists
Regarding the statement (previously removed by User:DannyWilde) :

 * While reviled by purists, these drinks are said to look, smell and taste somewhat like beer, and according to some definitions, might be regarded as beer.

According to purist:

 * A purist is one who desires that a particular item remain true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences.

According to beer:

 * The main ingredients of beer are water, malted barley, hops and yeast. Other ingredients, such as flavouring or sources of sugar, are called adjuncts and are commonly used; Common adjuncts are corn and rice.

By definition, happoshu contains less than 67% barley malt relative to adjuncts. The vast majority of happoshu sold today contains less than 25% malt (i.e. Asahi Honnama, Kirin Tanrei, Sapporo Nama-Shibori). Most "third beers" contain no malt, and use different ingredients entirely. Thus it is reasonable to state they are reviled by purists, who desire beer that remains "true to its essence and free from adulterating or diluting influences". Dforest 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yet again, you are incorrect. It is not "reasonable to state" any opinion in Wikipedia, especially on the basis of other Wikipedia pages. Other Wikipedia pages are not considered reliable sources. See WP:RS. If you want to make a POV statement like "reviled by purists" you need to make a clear, sourced statement of which purists say this. This is the Wikipedia policy. If you put the material in the article again, I'll remove it again, ad infinitum, until there is a source on the page itself. --DannyWilde 07:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Japanese beer


text: Category:Condottieri

title: Category:Condottieri


text: Talk:List of storms named Fabian

title: Talk:List of storms named Fabian


text: Talk:List of storms named Felix

title: Talk:List of storms named Felix


text: Talk:List of storms named Florence

title: Talk:List of storms named Florence


text:
Talk:List of storms named Flossie

Proposed Move
It is Wikiproject policy to use "tropical storm" as a prefix in incompatible basins. There was a Typhoon Flossie in 1975, and there may be others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Page was moved on 25 December 2005 by Marudubshinki --Lox (t,c) 18:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of storms named Flossie


text: Talk:List of storms named Floyd

title: Talk:List of storms named Floyd


text: Talk:List of storms named Fran

title: Talk:List of storms named Fran


text: Talk:List of storms named Frances

title: Talk:List of storms named Frances


text: User:Exir Kamalabadi/E2AC

title: User:Exir Kamalabadi/E2AC


text:
User:Ganeshg

The ancient site lies 5 km. to the North-West of Amaravati on the Paler river, a tributary of the Krishna about 5 km. North of their union. The site was known as Betavolu in the past and was renamed as Jaggayyapet by the zamindar of Chintapalli who reconstructed the village.

History During the excavations in 1818, a few carved slabs from one of the brick mounds revealed the existence of a group of ancient stupas. After excavation, the stupa was found to be 9 meters in diameter and was decorated with slabs of the same material used in Amaravati. Inside the casing the stupa is made completely out of bricks and earth. About a kilometer from the town is a hill known as Dhanabodu or Hill of wealth on which once stood a great Stupa or Mahachaitya. Around the hillock are traces of monastic buildings.

Monuments & Antiquities A Mahachaitya filled with layers of rubble & gravel two feet thick. The slabs surrounding the base of the stupa were plain very few of them having any carving except a small pilaster up the edge. Some of the sculptures on the pilasters closely resemble in style of Bharhut sculptures. The capitals are heavy and roughly bell-shaped and show addorsed double-winged animals like that at Patalkhora. Some of the slabs were inscibed in characters of Mauryan type ascribable to the beginning of the 2nd century BC.

How to Reach 70 kms from Vijayawada in Krishna District. From Vijayawada Jaggayyapeta is well connected by bus and there are frequent buses from Vijayawada. Private transport is also available.

title: User:Ganeshg


text: Category:United States senators from Michigan


text:
Talk:Distributive writing

Isn't this collaborative writing ? And the technology stuff is collaborative editing?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Distributive writing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050504175931/http://www.stc.org:80/ConfProceed/2003/PDFs/STC50-111.pdf to http://www.stc.org/ConfProceed/2003/PDFs/STC50-111.pdf

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Distributive writing


text:
Utah Supreme Court

The Utah Supreme Court is the supreme court of the state of Utah, United States. It has final authority of interpretation of the Utah Constitution. The Utah Supreme Court is composed of five members: a chief justice, an associate chief justice, and three justices. All justices are appointed by the governor of Utah, with confirmation by the Utah Senate. The five justices elect one of their own to serve as chief justice and another to serve as associate chief justice, each for a term of four years.

History
Before present-day Utah became a state, it was organized into a provisional state, called the State of Deseret. Its constitution established a three-member supreme court. In 1850, the United States Congress passed "An Act to Establish a Territorial Government for Utah", Section 9 of which provided that "the judicial power of said territory shall be vested in a Supreme Court, District Court, and Justices of the Peace". This act converted Deseret's supreme court into a territorial supreme court with expanded jurisdiction.

In 1894, the United States Congress passed an Enabling Act, which called a convention to draft a constitution for Utah, another step towards statehood. The Enabling Act provided that Utah's territorial courts would be succeeded by new state courts with the same structure and jurisdiction. When Utah became a state on January 4, 1896, its constitution took effect, and Utah's territorial supreme court was replaced by a new state supreme court. The constitution provided that the court would have three members, but that the Utah Legislature could expand its membership to five after 1905, an option it ultimately exercised.

In 1998, the Utah Supreme Court moved into its current courthouse, named for Governor Scott M. Matheson. The multimillion-dollar building was nicknamed the "Taj Mahal" by some critics over its cost. Prior to that, the court met in the Utah State Capitol.

Supreme Court justices
The Governor of Utah nominates justices from a list created by a judicial nominating commission each time a vacancy arises. The nominee must then be confirmed by a majority of the Utah Senate to take office. If confirmed, the justice is subjected to a nonpartisan, "unopposed retention election at the first general election held more than three years after appointment" and every ten years thereafter.

title: Utah Supreme Court


text:
Brampton Stallions

Brampton Stallions were a Canadian soccer team, founded in 2001 as the Brampton Hitmen before changing its name in 2005. The team was a member of the Canadian Soccer League and played in the National Division. The team went "dormant" in 2006.

The Stallions played their home games at Victoria Park Stadium in the city of Brampton, Ontario, around 25 miles west of downtown Toronto. The team's colours were black and white. The club struggled during its infant stages failing to make the postseason during its first two seasons. Until finally capturing the CPSL Championship in 2003, and ending as playoff contender during its final tenure within the league.

History
Brampton came into existence and entered the Canadian Professional Soccer League in 2001, along with Toronto Supra, Ottawa Wizards, and Montreal Dynamites. The franchise was placed in the Western Conference and would call Victoria Park Stadium as their home venue. Former Montreal Impact head coach Paul Kitson was appointed to the position. Kitson stocked his inaugural roster with former USL A-League players like Edgar Bartolomeu, Francisco Dos Santos, Laryea Adjetey, Ivan Jurisic, Paulo Silva, Adolfo Mella, and named CPSL veteran Phil Ionadi captain. The Hitmen debuted on June 3, 2001, in a 1–1 draw against the St. Catharines Wolves. Kitson struggled to achieve results for the club, which led to his dismissal from his post after going eight matches without a victory.

His replacement was Joe Da Silva, who managed Brampton's first victory on August 12, 2001, in a 3–2 win over London City. Da Silva would accomplish a respectable record, but would fall short in gaining a playoff berth. For the 2002 season Da Silva left Brampton to coach a Portuguese third division club, and was replaced by Ed McLaughlin with coaching experience in the Ontario Soccer League. McLaughlin would retain the majority of the roster from the previous season with Paolo Ceccarelli, Luca Centurione, and Milodrag Akmadzic as notable signings. McLaughlin was replaced early on in the season, and Brampton founder and owner Steve Nijjar took over the rein of head coach. Nijjar would achieve a seven-game undefeated streak, and reach the semifinals of the Open Canada Cup tournament, but would be eliminated by the Ottawa Wizards. Nijjar would continue in his capacity as head coach for the 2003 season. Hector Marinaro, Sr. was appointed the general manager for the organization. Nijjar would strengthen his roster with Hugo Herrera, Ruben Flores, and Jonathan Bustamante. The Brampton franchise would clinch a postseason berth for the first time by finishing second in the Western Conference. Their first opponents in the playoffs were Toronto Croatia, where the math concluded in a 4–3 victory on penalties for Toronto. The next day the league reversed the result after Toronto was caught fielding two suspend club officials. The next match was a wildcard match against London City, which resulted in a 5–3 victory on penalties for Brampton.

The Hitmen reached the finals after Ottawa Wizards pulled out of the playoffs. Their opponents were Vaughan Sun Devils with a goal coming from Kurt Mella the match would end in a 1–0 victory for Brampton, thus capturing their first major trophy within the league. Team captain Phil Ionadi was awarded the Canadian Soccer League MVP Award at the CPSL Awards ceremony. For the 2004 season the Hitmen came to an agreement with Mexican giants Cruz Azul to train their youth players. New signings for the season were Juan Cruz Real, Angel Velazquez, and league veterans Bayete Smith, and Paul Daccobert. Steve Nijjar, Bayete Smith, and Phil Ionadi were selected for the CPSL All-Star roster which faced Boavista F.C. in a friendly match. Brampton qualified for the postseason by finishing fourth in the Western Conference. In the wild card match Brampton faced Toronto Croatia, but were eliminated by a score of 3–1.

In 2005, the franchise was purchased by Electrical Contractor Joe Fuliere, and renamed the team to the Brampton Stallions. While during the season the team performed poorly finishing last in the Western Conference, and failing to clinch a playoff berth. The team began with Ken Dawson as head coach, until being replaced by former defender Milodrag Akmadzic to fill the vacant role of head coach. For the 2006 season the head coach selected for the club was Paul Dhillon, who was a product of The Academy of Football and with coaching experience in the OSL. He reinforced his squad with former Toronto Lynx players Helio Pereira, Andre Andrade, and Clayson Queiroz. Dhillon led the Stallions to the playoffs by finishing second in the National Division. Unfortunately Brampton would forfeit from the playoffs after their home venue had unsuitable playing conditions, which resulted in a dispute with the leagues administration. The team went on hiatus after the 2006 season, and is currently a 'dormant' franchise.

Titles

 * CPSL Championship: 1
 * 2003

title: Brampton Stallions


text:
Margaret Theresa of Spain

Margaret Theresa of Spain (Margarita Teresa, Margarete Theresia; 12 July 1651 – 12 March 1673) was, by marriage to Leopold I, Holy Roman Empress, German Queen, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia. She was the daughter of King Philip IV of Spain and the elder full-sister of Charles II, the last of the Spanish Habsburgs. She is the central figure in the famous Las Meninas by Diego Velázquez, and the subject of many of his later paintings.

Early years
Margaret Theresa was born on 12 July 1651 in Madrid as the first child of King Philip IV of Spain born from his second marriage with his niece Mariana of Austria. Because of this avunculate marriage, Margaret's mother was nearly thirty years younger than her father.

Margaret's paternal grandparents were King Philip III of Spain and his wife Archduchess Margaret of Austria. Her maternal grandparents were Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor and his wife Infanta Maria Anna of Spain, the daughter of her paternal grandparents.

The marriage of her parents was purely made for political reasons, mainly the search for a new male heir for the Spanish throne after the early death of Balthasar Charles, Prince of Asturias in 1646. Besides him, the other only surviving child of Philip IV's first marriage was the Infanta Maria Theresa, who later became the wife of King Louis XIV of France. After Margaret, between 1655 and 1661, four more children (a daughter and three sons) were born from the marriage between Philip IV and Mariana of Austria, but only one survived infancy, the future King Charles II of Spain.

Despite the close consanguinity of her parents, Margaret did not develop the serious health issues and disabilities that her younger brother had shown since his birth. During her childhood she was once seriously ill, but survived. According to contemporaries, Margaret had an attractive appearance and lively character. Her parents and close friends called her the "little angel". She grew up in the queen's chambers in the Royal Alcazar of Madrid surrounded by many maids and servants. The infanta loved candies, which she constantly hid from the physicians who cared for the health of her teeth. Both Margaret's father and maternal grandfather Emperor Ferdinand III loved her deeply. In his private letters King Philip IV called her "my joy". At the same time, Margaret was brought up in accordance with the strict etiquette of the Madrid court, and received a good education.

Betrothal and marriage
In the second half of the 1650s at the imperial court in Vienna the necessity developed for another dynastic marriage between the Spanish and Austrian branches of the House of Habsburg. The union was needed to strengthen the position of both countries, especially against the Kingdom of France. At first the proposals were for Maria Theresa, the eldest daughter of Philip IV, to marry the heir of the Holy Roman Empire, Archduke Leopold Ignaz. But in 1660 and under the terms of the Treaty of the Pyrenees, Maria Theresa was married to the French King, Louis XIV; as a part of her marriage contract, she was asked to renounce her claims to the Spanish throne in return for a monetary settlement as part of her dowry, which was never paid.

Then began discussion about a marriage between Margaret and the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (who was her maternal uncle and paternal cousin). However, the Madrid court hesitated to agree to this proposal, because the infanta could inherit the Spanish crown if her little brother died. The count of Fuensaldaña, Spanish ambassador in France, suggested the infanta as a possible bride for King Charles II of England. However, King Philip IV rejected this idea, replying that the King of England should look for a wife in France.

In October 1662, the new Imperial ambassador in Spain, Count Francis Eusebius of Pötting, began one of his main diplomatic assignments, which was the celebration of the marriage between the infanta and the emperor. Negotiations by the Spanish side were led by Ramiro Núñez de Guzmán, Duke of Medina de las Torres. On 6 April 1663, the betrothal between Margaret and Leopold I was finally announced. The marriage contract was signed on 18 December. Before the official wedding ceremony (which, according to custom, had to take place in Vienna) another portrait of the infanta was sent, in order for the emperor to know his bride.

King Philip IV died on 17 September 1665. In his will, he did not mention Margaret's betrothal; in fact, the context in which the document was prepared suggests that the late monarch still hesitated to marry his daughter to his Austrian relative because he sought to ensure her rights as sole ruler of the Spanish crown in case of the extinction of his male line. Mariana of Austria, now Dowager Queen and Regent of the kingdom on behalf of her minor son Charles II, delayed the wedding of her daughter. The marriage was agreed upon only after intense Imperial diplomatic efforts. On 25 April 1666, the marriage by proxy was finally celebrated in Madrid, in a ceremony attended not only by the Dowager Queen, King Charles II and the Imperial ambassador but also by the local nobility; the groom was represented by Antonio de la Cerda, 7th Duke of Medinaceli. On 28 April 1666 Margaret traveled from Madrid to Vienna, accompanied by her personal retinue. The infanta arrived at Dénia, where she rested for some days before embarking on the Spanish royal fleet on 16 July, in turn escorted by ships of the Order of Malta and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Then (after a short stop in Barcelona because Margaret had some health issues) the cortege sailed to the port of Finale Ligure, arriving on 20 August. There, Margaret was received by Luis Guzman Ponce de Leon, Governor of Milan. The cortege left Finale on 1 September and arrived in Milan ten days later, although the official entry was not celebrated until 15 September. After spending almost all September in Milan, the infanta continued the journey through Venice, arriving in early October in Trento. At every stop Margaret received celebrations in her honor. On 8 October the Spanish retinue arrived at the city of Roveredo, where the head of Margaret's cortege, Francisco Fernández de la Cueva, 8th Duke of Alburquerque officially handed the infanta to Ferdinand Joseph, Prince of Dietrichstein and Count Ernst Adalbert von Harrach, Prince-Bishop of Trent, representants of Leopold I. On 20 October the new Austrian cortege left Roveredo, crossing the Tyrol, through Carinthia and Styria, and arrived on 25 November at the district of Schottwien, twelve miles from Vienna where the emperor came to receive his bride.

Holy Roman Empress and German Queen
The infanta formally entered Vienna on 5 December 1666. The official marriage ceremony was celebrated seven days later. The Viennese celebrations of the imperial marriage were among the most splendid of all the Baroque era, and lasted almost two years.

The emperor ordered the construction of an open-air theatre near the present Burggarten, with a capacity of 5,000 people. For Margaret's birthday in July 1668, the theatre hosted the premiere of the opera Il pomo d'oro (The Golden Apple). Composed by Antonio Cesti, the opera was called the "staging of the century" by contemporaries due to its magnificence and expense. The year before, the emperor gave an equestrian ballet where he personally mounted on his horse, Speranza; due to technical adaptations, the ballet gave spectators the impression that horses and carriages were hovering in the air.

Despite the age difference, Leopold I's unattractive appearance and Margaret's health problems, according to contemporaries they had a happy marriage. The empress always called her husband "Uncle" (de: Onkel), and he called her "Gretl" (a German diminutive of Margaret). The couple had many common interests, especially in art and music.

During her six years of marriage, Margaret gave birth to four children, of whom only one survived infancy:

 * Ferdinand Wenceslaus Joseph Michael Eleazar (28 September 1667 – 13 January 1668), Archduke of Austria.
 * Maria Antonia Josepha Benedicta Rosalia Petronella (18 January 1669 – 24 December 1692), Archduchess of Austria, who inherited her mother's claims to the Spanish throne, married Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria and was the mother of Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria.
 * John Leopold (born and died 20 February 1670), Archduke of Austria.
 * Maria Anna Josepha Antonia Apollonia Scholastica (9 February 1672 – 23 February 1672), Archduchess of Austria.

The empress reportedly inspired her husband to expel the Jews from Vienna, because she believed that they were to blame for her children's deaths. During the Corpus Christi celebration of 1670, the emperor ordered the destruction of the Vienna synagogue and a church was built on the site on his orders.

Even after her marriage, Margaret kept her Spanish customs and ways. Surrounded almost exclusively by her native retinue (which included secretaries, confessors, and doctors), she loved Spanish music and ballets and therefore hardly learned the German language.

Death
Weakened due to six pregnancies in six years (which included four living childbirths and two miscarriages ) and four months into her seventh pregnancy, Margaret died on 12 March 1673, at the age of 21. She was buried in the Imperial Crypt, in Vienna. Only four months later, the widower emperor – despite his grief for the death of his "only Margareta" (as he remembered her) – entered into a second marriage with Archduchess Claudia Felicitas of Austria, member of the Tyrolese branch of the House of Habsburg.

After Margaret's death, her rights over the Spanish throne were inherited by her only surviving daughter Maria Antonia, who in turn passed them to her only surviving son Prince Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria when she died in 1692. After Joseph Ferdinand's early death in 1699, the rights of inheritance were disputed by both Emperor Leopold I and King Louis XIV of France, son-in-law of King Philip IV. The outcome of the War of the Spanish Succession was the creation of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon in the person of King Philip V, Margaret's great-nephew.

Depictions in art
Shortly before the birth of Margaret, painter Diego Velázquez returned to the Spanish court in Madrid. From 1653 to 1659 a series of portraits of the infanta were painted. Three of them – "Infanta Margarita Teresa in a Pink Dress" (1660), Infanta Margarita in a White and Silver Dress (1656) and Infanta Margarita Teresa in a Blue Dress (1659) were sent to the Imperial court in Vienna, and now are displayed in the Kunsthistorisches Museum. In the last paintings of the 8-year-old infanta made by Velázquez, a more mature and formal attitude of Margaret can be seen, due to her upcoming marriage to the emperor.

The most famous painting by Velazquez in the series of portraits of the infanta was Las Meninas (1656), currently in the Museo del Prado in Madrid. In it, the artist painted the 5-year-old infanta in his studio while working on a portrait of her parents. She is surrounded by her maids of honor and other courtiers, but her eyes are riveted to her parents, whose reflection is visible in the mirror on the wall. The canvas was the inspiration for Picasso, who in 1957 created more than forty variations of this pattern.

The image of Margaret in the paintings by Velázquez inspired not only painters. The poet Boris Pasternak mentions it in a poem of 1923 "Butterfly Storm", in which she appears to him as a vision during a thunderstorm in Moscow. The first image in this poem who Pasternak contrasted with the portraits of the Infanta was mentioned by Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov, in his work "Eternal Childhood".

The Infanta Margarita Teresa in a Pink Dress (1660), formerly credited to Velázquez, is now considered one of the masterpieces of his son-in-law, Juan Bautista Martínez del Mazo. To Martínez del Mazo also belongs the latter "Portrait of the Infanta Margarita in mourning dress" (1666), in which she is depicted shortly after her father's death and shortly before her wedding. Both paintings are also included in the collection of the Museo del Prado. The authority of the "Portrait of the Infanta Margarita" (1655) currently at the Louvre, is still questioned by researchers.

There are portraits of an adult Margaret by a number of European artists, most of which are stored in the collections of the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. Among them, "a full-length portrait of the Infanta Margarita Teresa, the Empress" (1665) by Gerard Du Chateau and "Portrait of Empress Margarita Teresa in a theatrical costume" (1667) by Jan Thomas van Ieperen. One of the last portraits of Margaret is the "Portrait of Empress Margarita Teresa and her daughter Maria Antonia" (c. 1670) by Jan Thomas van Ieperen, currently in the Hofburg, where she is depicted with her only surviving child. Numerous copies of her portraits are also preserved, and are now kept in the museum collections around the world.

Ancestors

 * style="text-align: left;"|Notes:
 * style="text-align: left;"|Notes:

Royal titles

title: Margaret Theresa of Spain


text: User:Exir Kamalabadi/E2AG

title: User:Exir Kamalabadi/E2AG


text:
Talk:Flak (disambiguation)

German Term
The german term stated as the root of flak is different from the one stated in the wiktionary. Here it is Flugabwehrkanone (and in Anti-aircraft warfare), Wiktionary states Fliegerabwehrkanone.

-

I am a bit mystified why every english page seems to think it is "Fliegerabwehrkanone". It is "Flugabwehrkanone" see e.g. the Bundeswehr page on the FlakPanzer Gepard. Just because a word by word translation into English does not make sense doesn't mean it is wrong.

"As a component of mostly Dutch, but also German and Scandinavian area place names, flak and similar may mean "flat land" or "flat sandbank": e.g. Flakfortet, Maasvlakte, Goeree-Overflakkee: compare English "flake"." It's actually vlak in dutch, not flak

English Usage
This disambiguation isn't quite correct. The English language adopted "flak" as a new word after WW2, in reference specifically to anti-aircraft weaponry that fires shells that burst into a cloud of shrapnel, such as the German 88 mm. It is not really used in a way that includes other types of anti-aircraft weapons. --Trifler (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it is. Probably 99% of regular people can't distinguish one type of AA shell from another, and yet, they refer to all of them as "flak"... CapnZapp (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flak (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Here Come the Drums

Untitled
It is unclear how an unreleased album contains two smash hits. It is also not verified anywhere that the second album of a dance outfit is "long awaited"

Uh...Incorrect
As usual, another hater gets it wrong.... Both songs released have been anticipated hits, as for the album; it is mentioned by the general public/retail stores/media as a 'hot and long awaited album'.
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-zine. If its a hit, give me its rank on the list.  Not sure what an 'anticipated hit' really amounts to unless you're thinking wikipedia is a crystal ball.  Comments by the general public and retail stores are really not verifiable sources.  --Gaff 07:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * but the rewite looks good and unless anyone objects, I have pulled the controversy and reads like an ad boxes from the page (being the one that put them there to begin with, I hope this is okay).--Gaff 07:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In Popular Culture?
Should it be mentioned that songs from this album were used in a two-part episode of Dr. Who? The name of the album is actually a major plot point. Honestly, Dr. Who is the only reason I know this band exists. 129.237.90.25 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Here Come the Drums. 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/20081228012025/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/biography/home.do to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/biography/home.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080304123324/http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2004 to http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2004

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) 11:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Here Come the Drums. 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/20071221081938/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003388 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003388

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Here Come the Drums. 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/20071221084341/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002560 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002560
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080313041026/http://www.nat-bass.com/Natalie/Biography/ to http://www.nat-bass.com/Natalie/Biography/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221084653/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002222 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002222
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221082855/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002707 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829002707
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221082904/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003332 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003332
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221082320/http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003177 to http://www.roguetraders.com.au/newsEvents/archive.do?newsId=20030829003177

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) 22:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Here Come the Drums


text:
Can Dialectics Break Bricks?

La dialectique peut-elle casser des briques ?, in English, "Can Dialectics Break Bricks?", is a 1973 Situationist film produced by the French director René Viénet which explores the development of class conflict through revolutionary agitation against a backdrop of graphic kung-fu fighting.

The film utilizes footage from the 1972 martial arts film Crush by Tu Guangqi, which tells the story of anti-colonialist revolt in occupied Korea, which was dubbed over by the filmmakers in an example of détournement. Viénet's intention was to adapt a "spectacular" film typical of the film industry to the purposes of a radical critique of cultural hegemony and thus an expression of subversive revolutionary ideals.

The narrative focuses on a conflict between proletarians and bureaucrats within state capitalism. The proletarians enlist their grasp of dialectics in the fight against their oppressors, while the bureaucrats defend themselves using a combination of co-optation and violence.

The film also contains numerous references to socialists, including Karl Marx, Bakunin, and Wilhelm Reich, as well as scathing criticism directed toward the French Communist Party, trade unionism and Maoism. Subplots dealing with issues of gender equality, alienation, the Paris Commune, May 1968 and situationist politics itself are riddled throughout the film.

The film has been compared to La Chinoise by Jean-Luc Godard, due to its usage of anti-capitalist political theory and Chinese imagery.

According to Richard Metzger, of Dangerous Minds, the film is a “a critique of class conflicts, bureaucratic socialism, the failures of the French Communist Party, Maoism, cultural hegemony, sexual equality and the way movies prop up Capitalist ideology.”

The Situationist movement argued that the persistence of capitalism relied on the system turning lived experiences into "anaesthetizing ‘spectacles’ that perpetuated alienation." Viénet's layering of radical Marxist discourse over a martial arts film delivers political messages through the use of humour as a way of "forcing audiences to actively confront the mechanics of their own entertainment."

The film is one of the few remaining examples of a situationist use of cinema, since Guy Debord withdrew his films from circulation.

title: Can Dialectics Break Bricks?


text: User talk:69.23.249.187

title: User talk:69.23.249.187


text: User:Adam1213/UserPage/Ask me

title: User:Adam1213/UserPage/Ask me


text:
Hare Trigger

Hare Trigger is a 1945 Merrie Melodies cartoon directed by Friz Freleng. The cartoon was released on May 5, 1945, and features Bugs Bunny. The short featured the first appearance of Yosemite Sam, as well as the first short to credit (almost) the whole animation staff who worked on the short (previously, shorts credited the director, one animator, writer, musical director and sometimes the voice actor).

This short is also the first to use the shortened version of "Merrily We Roll Along" that played from 1945 to 1955. The title is a play on "hair trigger", referring to any weapon or other device with a sensitive trigger.

Plot
After opening credits underscored by a lively instrumental of "Cheyenne", an old-fashioned 2-4-0 train is seen rolling along through the desert. It passes another train going around a utility pole, and voices are heard repeating "Bread and Butter" with the engine blowing its whistle to the tune "Yankee Doodle".

Bugs is riding in the mail car of a train, singing a nonsense song called "Go Get the Axe", when a pint-sized bandit attempts to rob the train (with the underscore playing the Erlkönig), only to have it pass clear over his head. He then calls for his horse, which he needs a rolling step-stair to mount. He catches up and boards the train and begins to rob it while the mail clerk wraps himself in a package marked DON'T OPEN 'TIL XMAS. The bandit accidentally throws Bugs Bunny in his sack. Bugs assumes that he is Jesse James. The bandit scoffs and tells him (and the audience), "I'm Yosemite Sam, the meanest, toughest, rip-roarin'-est, Edward Everett Horton-est hombre that ever packed a six-shooter!" (This pattern of Sam introducing himself to Bugs and the audience continued in other cartoons.) Bugs tells Sam that there is another tough guy in the train packing a "seven-shooter", and Sam goes looking for him – and it turns out to be Bugs in disguise.

Various fights ensue, as each character temporarily gets the upper hand for a while. In one scene, Bugs dumps red ink on Sam, causing him to think he has been shot; he collapses (while Bugs sings "O Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie") but eventually realizes the red liquid is only ink. Sam pushes his face furiously into Bugs', then pulls back and with a quiet, offended tone asks, "Why did you pour ink on mah haid?" After another skirmish, Bugs tricks Sam into dashing into a lounge car in which a horrific fight is occurring. (Stock film footage of a stereotypical western saloon fight, taken from the Warner Bros. Western film Dodge City, was used here.) With the sounds of crashes and bangs in the background, Bugs calmly sings "Sweet Georgia Brown" to himself. Sam emerges tottering, banged and bruised, to a comical instrumental of "Rally 'Round the Flag". Bugs, affecting the stereotyped voice of an African-American train porter, persuades the dazed Sam that he is supposed to disembark the train, piling him up with luggage; Sam even hands Bugs a silver coin as a tip, and Bugs says, "Thank you, suh!" As Sam steps off the moving train, the mail-drop hook grabs him and temporarily whisks him off the train. Bugs thinks he has vanquished Sam, and yells, "So long, screwy, see ya in Saint Louie!" a line that will be echoed in Wild and Woolly Hare and A Feather in His Hare. But Sam gets back on board somehow. Bugs and Sam start a fight on top of the passenger carriages.

Finally, Sam has Bugs tied up, dangling from a rope, weighted down by an anvil, and fiendishly cutting through the rope, while the train is passing over a gorge. ("Now, ya lop-eared polecat, try and get out of this one!") The screen fills with the words the narrator (Mel Blanc, in close to his natural voice) is saying, "Is this the end of Bugs Bunny? Will our hero be dashed to bits on the jagged rocks below?". Then Bugs walks across the screen, dressed in top hat and tails, carrying a bag full of gold (reward money), and dragging the now tied-up Sam behind him, mocking the on-screen words ("Is he to be doomed to utter destruction? Will he be rendered non compos mentis?"). Bugs closes by turning to the audience and repeating a popular radio catchphrase from Red Skelton's "Mean Widdle Kid": "He don't know me vewy well, do he?" as a bar of "Kingdom Coming" plays on the track at iris-out.

Home media

 * VHS – Bugs Bunny Classics: Special Collectors Edition
 * VHS – Bugs Bunny's Zaniest Toons
 * VHS – The Golden Age of Looney Tunes Vol 6: Friz Freleng
 * Laserdisc – Bugs Bunny Classics: Special Collectors Edition
 * Laserdisc – The Golden Age of Looney Tunes Volume 1, Side 6
 * DVD – Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 6, Disc 1

title: Hare Trigger


text:
Talk:Take That

Images
Why are the album cover images constantly deleted? The Backstreet Boys page has many album images that stay. Can someone clarify why the TT keep being taken off? How are they breaking copyright laws if other pages can feature them?

Surely we can find a better main image? A clearer one that shows them better and larger. Again, any better ones keep getting deleted. Confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebrowninkpot (talk • contribs) 09:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

maybe because they weren't copyrighted/ I quite like the current pic, sadly I don't have that many up close ones off all of them, though I have a few of Never Forget(and the one on Jason's page is also mine)

Musical
I might have missed it, but is there any mention in the article of the jukebox musical that will be made based on their music? -- Annie D 06:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added reference to the musical. Light Defender (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The musical is unofficial, so only warrants ONE mention in the 'Other Media' section - not a link at the TOP of the Take That page, a separate weblink, an image AND a paragraph about it along with the 'other media' point. This is blatant advertising, not information and you Light Defender need to stop vandalising this page. The band have clarified that they don't support the musical nor have any connection to it other than their songs being featured in in. EITHER WAY the information about the musical can go on it's OWN page (which it has one already filled by you), not the Take That page. There is FAR more relevant information about the actual article - TAKE THAT - that isn't on the page as it is. Please keep the topic relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatter (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The musical is not unofficial? Whether Take That are 'officially backing the musical or not does not change the point that it is a 'Take That' Musical. It is referred to in the press as the 'Take That' Musical and it is based solely on the music of 'Take That'. The music has very officially been licensed by 'Take That'. It would be strange if there wasn't a link to the musical page from here. (As the user above pointed out in June last year) Light Defender (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry to butt into this discussion, but the more interesting question for THIS article is, what effect has the musical had on the band, if any? Did the creation of, publicity for, and tour of the musical actually help the band popularise its comeback?  I have no idea if this is relevant, I'm just asking - if it is so, then something else ought to be said in the article.  If not, then I agree that the material that is now shown under other media is probably good enough for now.  After the musical opens on the West End, if it becomes a really big hit, then perhaps a little more about it will be of interest in this article.  Best regards, everyone, and try to be calm.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Biographies
There is no mention of Gary Barlow's brief acting career He appeared in the TV show "Heartbeat" (1 episode, 2000)in the episode "The Son-In-Law" (2000) as character "Micky Shannon" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.192.22.33 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) source: imdb.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.192.22.33 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could go on Garys page, if it's not already there?

Also, the biography for Robbie Williams has a link to his personal Wiki-page, none of the others have the internal link.

I don't know why someone added the link to his page. There was a mini biography under Robs heading like the other four. Hopefully someone will rewrite it.

No joke
I honestly thought they were a christian rock band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.95 (talk) 00:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You've obviously never seen the Do what you like video nor the original Give Good Feeling ;)

Page protection
The following edit is the matter of an edit war: "Barlow is unconnected to the musical and commented that it has “the smell of the end of the pier” about it. (Reference: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article1907803.ece We can relight our own fire, thank you])"

Please reach a consensus on whether to include or exclude this statement at Talk:Never_Forget_(Musical) so that this article can be unprotected. Thank you. --  Netsnipe   ►  11:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 * A compromise statement can set forth the facts that the musical uses songs composed by Barlow in the 1990s and that in 2006 Barlow and EMI licensed the songs for use in the show. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link

I've removed the above disambiguation link for Never Forget, the Take That musical. According to Wikipedia guidelines disambiguation "is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article."

As it's incredibly unlikely that users would type "Take That" into the search box and expect to arrive at the page to an article practically (it seems) unconnected with the band, and as the titles are not even close in being similar, this usage of disambiguation links is incorrect in my view.

Howie ☎  20:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Totally correct. This was advertising by someone involved in the show and needs to have an eye kept on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlebrowninkpot (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Street Beat/Cutest Rush
Can people please stop mentioning Street Beat and Cutest Rush? As revealed many times now this was a false story created by NMS and the members didn't know each other before the audition. Thanks! OrangeTigger73 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

in other media info
why was the in other media info shortened? I added Shameless and someone else added The Office prior to that... both(and others) gone nowOrangeTigger73 (talk) 00:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No mention of why Robbie Williams left Take That
This is a pretty important event, because it was why the band disbanded in the first place. However in the article the explanation doesn't go beyond after Williams left the band. Someone should fix this up -- Hamster   X  04:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. We need to focus on the circumstances in which Williams left the group; specifically his drug and alcohol abuse, friction with the other members, etc. As well as his conflict of ideas with Barlow over the group's material, Williams' problems with Nigel Martin-Smith should be covered (being sued by NMS for owed commission in 1996) --User: Cluebert 04:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

list of songs + history of the band (managers, etc)
There's no mention of their full list of songs produced so far. Would also be nice to have a bit on the various managers and other people involved in Take That's success, etc. --Rebroad (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

request to semi-protect page
There have been no announcements made regarding the return of Robbie Williams to the band yet people persist in editing him back into the band here. It should be protected to prevent such vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.154.23 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 update
Mentioning of their participation of the charity single "Everybody Hurts" for Haiti earthquake.--Cooly123 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Free image
Whilst the free image isn't great, our image policy states that it must be used instead of a non-free image. BUT, there must be a better free image out there. Thousands of people must have taken photos at their recent shows, and I'm pretty sure one of them would like their photo at the top of the Wikipedia article. I'll try to scour some forums. Someone might also like to try Flickr to see if there's a suitable CC-licensed image there. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Is there any way we can get a free licensed picture of Take That, all we seem to be getting at the moment are copyright infringements and fan photos that arent good enough mainly because they dont show the whole group in focus...Yids2010 (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Daily fan blog?
This article looks more like a daily fan blog than an encyclopedia article. --80.135.246.16 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Record Label Problem
I corrected many pages noting the Sony/BMG issues, BMG and Sony were separate major record labels when Take That was signed to BMG, so they never were with Sony, I corrected the 1st page and debut album to BMG, Sony has BMG now, but at that time, it was not the case. Xilefeniotan (talk) 01:10, 19 febuary 2011 (EST)

Robbie spotted outside Denmark hotel?
Where is the reference for Robbie having been spotted outside his hotel in Denmark looking fine when he had food poisoning? I have looked this up on Google and can find no mention of it anywhere. Is there any evidence to back this up?

Robbie's apparent departure
Although the tabloids are stating he has left Take That, the official statement of the band states clearly that the five piece of Take That are on a break here. They have not left each other's company, Robbie is releasing a solo album whilst Take That have their annual year off after their tour. Until the band state otherwise officially through their website or appropriate channels, Robbie is still part of Take That. Tabloid rumour mill is not good enough, we need an official statement before changing anything. Virus101 (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * It's not a "tabloid rumour" if Gary Barlow has actually stated to the press that Robbie Williams has left Take That. I agree that we need to look into finding more supportive evidence that Barlow has made such a statement, but as it currently stands it's more than just a rumour from the mill, it's a statement from a member. Burbridge92 (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, but it was also announced that Gary Barlow's words were taken out of context. Take That management has today come out and rubbished these rumours here and here. It also says here at the bottom of the article that once Robbie Williams completes his solo album he will return to Take That. Virus101 (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * They must have changed his wording a lot to get that out-of-context. None-the-less, we have the evidence we need. Regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I've just reviewed those articles you posted links for, definitely a blatant change of wording there. Burbridge92 (talk) 19:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, it appears that Rob won't ever be announced as leaving Take That, he'll just release a solo album during the year that Take That take off and always remain part of the group. Virus101 (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice for them if that was the case, but we can never say never I suppose. In any case, it appears the lineup will be stable for the forseeable future at least. Burbridge92 (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Robbie Williams only rejoined Take That for one year. The official press statement made in 2010 stated this quite clearly. Now that year is up, he's left again. It was only a temporary arrangement, and that was made clear all along. The press statements made in Oct 2011 are refuting rumours that THE BAND are splitting up (i.e. the other four members). It does not suggest anything about Robbie Williams, though the statement makes it clear that he is welcome to rejoin the band whenever he wishes though there are no current plans for him to work with the band again. It is quite apparent that Williams has clearly left the band and should be listed as an ex member until an official announcement is made that clearly states he is working with them again. 88.104.31.32 (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been made quite clear on a number of occasions that the band are now officially considered a four-piece. This has been confirmed by Gary Barlow on both The One Show and Alan Carr Chatty Man this week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.16.11 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I agree that Robbie is not "officially" part of the band anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faltasian (talk • contribs) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no proof that Robbie Williams would be leaving Take That as soon as he rejoined it. As of now, we might as well put him on the current members list until further announcements commence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.70.242 (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Complete list of songs?
I notice most other artists have a link to a page documenting a complete list of their songs. Is there a reason why Take That do not? I would be happy to work to create one. --Jonie148 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV - fan page?
It's mostly stylistic choices, and choices about what is included vs excluded, but it reads so much like a fan page or record company bio. Just because you find a citation saying 'Greatest boyband eva' or whatever, doesn't really mean that it is true, you know what I mean? I've a feeling that you could likely find someone notable effusing praise about any boyband, particularly after they 'breakup'. I say this being aware that the response will be along the lines of "well, if you don't like it, edit it with sources" yada, yada. But I really don't have the interest to do that. I just clicked through on a link that had their 2006 album as 'high selling' and thought to myself "weren't they a nineties band? How are they having success on that scale in 2006?". The article doesn't really answer that except to say 'They are so talented and beautiful and they write such good songs. Everyone thinks they are the greatest band since sliced cheese'.

So, on behalf of those seeking fair and balanced wikipedia articles, please editors, just try a little to make this a little more objective and a little deeper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.207.146 (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Name of section
Just to give everyone a heads up; I have renamed the section "Everything Changes and Superstardom" to "Everything Changes, Nobody Else, and Superstardom" so all the studio albums are clearly visible in the band biography. If anybody disagrees, please discuss it with me before reverting, Thanks --Jonie148 (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Music Industry Trust honours Barlow
Okay I can't seem to find anything regarding 45 million in this article. Can you point me to it? Here's the whole article from here http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/music-industry-trust-honours-barlow-7959103.html

"Take That star Gary Barlow is to be celebrated with an honorary award from the music business.

The singer-songwriter will be the recipient of the annual Music Industry Trusts Award with a charity dinner to recognise his contribution over the past two decades.

It comes just weeks after Barlow organised a huge concert outside Buckingham Palace for the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, and went on to be given an OBE in the Birthday Honours.

The X Factor judge also co-wrote and co-ordinated the recording of a chart-topping Jubilee song, called Sing.

Barlow follows in the footsteps of last year's MIT Award winner Jools Holland, while previous winners have included Sir Elton John, Sir Tom Jones and Kylie Minogue.

The 21st annual MIT dinner on November 5 will benefit music therapy charity Nordoff Robbins and the Brit Trust.

David Munns, chairman of the award committee, said of Barlow: "He is one of the UK's most accomplished artists - a unique musician, songwriter and producer who embodies both success and distinction, and who serves as a dedicated ambassador for many charities.

"I can't think of another artist who works with both Simon Cowell and Her Majesty The Queen."

Last year's event featured a video message from the Prince Of Wales who praised Holland's work." --  Krystaleen  15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 * "Read it again," they said. A proper reply in this discussion would be nice.--  Krystaleen  01:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

4 piece or 5 piece?
There seems to be some disputes about this. Is there any reliable source that states whether Robbie has left again?--  Krystaleen  02:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

'Hiatus as of 2012'
People adding 'Hiatus as of 2012' (or similar text) to the years active section, then others removing it again in a seemingly never-ending war is really starting to annoy me. Can we please decide once and for all; Are they on a Hiatus or not, and if so, is this noteworthy enough to put at the top of the article? Rant over. Thank You. --Jonie148 (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No Si Aqui No Hay Amor - Single?
It has recently come to my attention that in 1994, in parallel to the release of Love Ain't Here Anymore, Take That released No Si Aqui No Hay Amor in Spain only.

I am aware that Wikipedia does not look too kindly on Country-specific singles, but I am equally certain that if it is not deserving of it's own article, this single should at least merit a mention in the main text of this article and within the singles area of Template:Take That. I would be interested to know what other editors think of this proposal, details of the single release can be found here; [1 ]. --Jonie148 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Robbie Williams
I am confused because this page describes Robbie Williams as "originally part of the line up", and is also listed on the list of "former members." That's fine, but the page for Robbie Williams himself reads "He is a member of Take That." Just wondering.

Take That!
I have a very vague memory that the band were originally called Take That! (with an exclamation mark). I can't find any evidence for such a claim though. Can anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.244.24 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Take That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100118101353/http://www.take-that.co.uk:80/ns/news2006.php to http://www.take-that.co.uk/ns/news2006.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090510063548/http://www.takethat.com:80/news/watch-the-premiere-of-the-bra to http://www.takethat.com/news/watch-the-premiere-of-the-bra/#newsItem

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Take That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081209005644/http://www.news.com.au:80/entertainment/story/0,26278,24211772-10388,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24211772-10388,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100430182536/http://www.take-that.co.uk:80/ns/news.php to http://www.take-that.co.uk/ns/news.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110511120001/http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx to http://www.bpi.co.uk/certifiedawards/search.aspx

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Take That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101124175807/http://uk.news.yahoo.com:80/22/20101121/tuk-uk-britain-music-charts-fa6b408.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101121/tuk-uk-britain-music-charts-fa6b408.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100221192347/http://www.itv.com:80/entertainment/thebrits2010/britshit30/ to http://www.itv.com/entertainment/thebrits2010/britshit30/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Take That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101029161226/http://www.takethat.com:80/news/2010/10/release-change to http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/10/release-change
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130611002846/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jj8oCq6kPCjp3C0xacJjN-0mHtlw?docId=N0083341288008158705A to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jj8oCq6kPCjp3C0xacJjN-0mHtlw?docId=N0083341288008158705A

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Take That. 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/20110809080222/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/take-that-progress-back-to-number-one-and-example-holds-firm/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/chart-news/take-that-progress-back-to-number-one-and-example-holds-firm/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Take That. 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/20150702233411/http://www.radiocentre.org/latest-industry-news/arqiva-commercial-radio-awards-2012-winners-announced to http://www.radiocentre.org/latest-industry-news/arqiva-commercial-radio-awards-2012-winners-announced
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0%2C26278%2C24211772-10388%2C00.html
 * Added tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Take-That-Have-Added-A-Further-Four-Dates-To-Their-Sell-Out-UK-Tour/Article/201012115849352?f=rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110518152918/http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/11/success-for-progress to http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/11/success-for-progress
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111022222142/http://www.takethat.com/news/2011/10/progress-live-%E2%80%93-the-album to http://www.takethat.com/news/2011/10/progress-live-%E2%80%93-the-album
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415034048/http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/02/take-that-win-best-live-act to http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/02/take-that-win-best-live-act
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005111339/http://www.ok.co.uk/posts/view/40416/Robbie-Williams-has-NOT-left-Take-That- to http://www.ok.co.uk/posts/view/40416/Robbie-Williams-has-NOT-left-Take-That-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140316225932/http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/05/take-that-win-at-the-57th-ivor-novello-awards to http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/05/take-that-win-at-the-57th-ivor-novello-awards
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120802053815/http://www.itv.com/nationsfavouritenumberone/thesingles/1990s/ to http://www.itv.com/nationsfavouritenumberone/thesingles/1990s/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120609011320/http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/02/take-that-win-best-live-act to http://www.takethat.com/news/2012/02/take-that-win-best-live-act
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516200340/http://www.takethat.com/news/2011/05/vote-for-the-circus-tour-live to http://www.takethat.com/news/2011/05/vote-for-the-circus-tour-live
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716191307/http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/12/itunes-best-album-song-of-2010 to http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/12/itunes-best-album-song-of-2010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101120232725/http://brits.co.uk/videos/1993-british-single-take to http://www.brits.co.uk/videos/1993-british-single-take

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) 00:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Take That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.preview-stock.com/blog2/?p=13
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140926060156/http://www.takethat.com/ to http://www.takethat.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121009203156/http://www.nme.com/news/nme/41410 to http://www.nme.com/news/nme/41410
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060503121757/http://www1.messe-berlin.de/vip8_1/website/Popkomm/Popkomm/ENG/home_en.html to http://www1.messe-berlin.de/vip8_1/website/Popkomm/Popkomm/ENG/home_en.html

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) 03:20, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Robbie possibly left because........
I think that Robbie left because he wanted to be something more than a backing vocal singer. So he became a solo artist. Yes you maybe thinking that I made this up because he came back to help them with the flood album. I think that that is because he thought that by coming back to them he may stay and make more money. But it turns out he was wrong the only solo bit he did in it was parts of 'the flood' and 'S.O.S'. But look how far he has come! Please give feedback on what you think (possotive or Negative) And I will try to answer any questions.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Take That. 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/20120627001125/http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/artists/wanted/news/gary-barlow-congratulates-wanted/ to http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/artists/wanted/news/gary-barlow-congratulates-wanted/

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) 10:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Back To The Rudebox
To whom it may concern: I have read the discussions and the hidden message regarding Robbie Williams' stint in take that as being an active member or being a former member, that which reads:

-5 November 2012 IS CURRENTLY THE LAST TIME ROBBIE WILLIAMS WAS A MEMBER OF TAKE THAT. THOUGH HE WILL MORE THAN LIKELY REJOIN THE BAND AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, HE IS NOT CURRENTLY INVOLVED WITH TAKE THAT, OTHER THAN FOR OCCASIONAL ONE-OFF PERFORMANCES. HIS LINE ON THIS GRAPH THEREFORE TERMINATES AT THE LAST TIME HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE BAND IN A CONSTRUCTIVE CAPACITY. PLEASE DISCUSS ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE BEFORE CHANGING THE DATES RELATED TO WILLIAMS ABOVE.-

So here I go, I did change a couple of things regarding Robbie Williams and Take That.

I believe I must make this very clear first: I did not change Robbie's status back to "Current Members" either on the left of the page, or the "BAND MEMBERS" section. That would start a long and unnecessary discussion between the fandom and the wikipedians alike. I did, however, add an "Inactive" status to his profile. You'll notice a change in the 1.10 part of the "History" section, where I changed the title from "second departure" to "distancing". The graph was also slightly altered. Once again I insist, I did NOT change Robbie's status back to "CURRENT MEMBERS", instead, decided to create a second colour and a id value box that reads 'Non-active member''. Since Robbie has been in and out of Take That, and still considers himself part of the group, plus the rest of the band members always being welcoming with open arms when performing with him anytime (The X Factor 2018 Finals, for example), I believe this change will make readers understand Robbie's situation in Take That much more easily.

Please feel welcome to edit the changes if the majority disagrees with them. And for those who do have much better experience in editing wikis, if you decide to make these changes look "prettier" to the reader, also feel free to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:21C1:C000:347:A804:6292:F41F:62B7 (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

PS: I changed Jason's colour to Orange. How didn't anybody think of this before?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:21C1:C000:347:A804:6292:F41F:62B7 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Thanks for taking the time to discuss this - the vast majority of people who edit this aspect of the article don't bother. I'll start by emphasising that I won't be making any changes to your edits until a consensus on this matter is reached by you/me/other interested editors. I don't know if there will be any other editors who reply to you, but I'll try and explain my own perspective. As you may or may not be aware, the nature of Williams' membership of the group is currently the most contentious aspect of this whole page - it makes up a large proportion of all the edits and reversions here. The "inactive member" angle has been implemented before, but has proven controversial - the consensus on the page at present is that Williams should not currently be considered a member of the group. In my opinion, Barlow's comments in interviews about the band having an open door policy do not equate to an official statement that Williams is currently a member of the group. As you note, it is obviously a complicated matter since Williams does do the odd performance with the band from time to time, but the position of the band's official website is that:

"After becoming a dad for the second time and hankering for a solo revival, Robbie took the decision to leave Take That once more, albeit under much more amicable circumstances second time around – the boys in the band remain firm friends"

 * I therefore personally feel like it misrepresents the situation to use the term inactive member, and in particular, I feel it is misleading for the Members graph to imply that Williams has made any significant contribution to the band since 2012. A few minor things too; either Williams' or Williams's is grammatically correct, as long as the article uses one or the other consistently throughout; and Jason's line on the Members graph certainly used to be orange when I first created it - I'd totally agree with it being changed back (I seem to remember the rationale another editor used for altering it was to make the line colours consistent with the microphone colours the band members use when on tour). Feel free to discuss further :) Also, if you're new to Wikipedia, you might want to check out these two pages. --Jonie148 (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

About Robbie Williams departure in Take That
On 28 April 2014, Williams announced on Twitter he was to become a dad for a second time, and consequently suggested he would be unable to join Take That on their album and tour. Although welcome to return to the band at any time, Williams chose not to return for group's seventh and eighth studio albums and their accompanying tours, focusing instead on his solo commitments. He continued to write music with his colleagues and performed with the group on several occasions since 2011's Progress tour and plans on returning at some point in the future.

I found this from the article and it was proves that Robbie left the group on April 28 2014 and not in 2012, like some people mean he did. Please stop editing the page, Robbie Willams was a part of the group from 1990 till 1995 and again in 2010 till 2014.

- Fona2000
 * please cite the source you claim for this. Changing the article without providing a source is disruptive, especially to articles about living people: see WP:BLP which you are required to follow. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

If you read this, it says that Robbie left the band on April 27 in 2014, right before the departure of Jason Orange and before the recordings of III (2014 album) https://takethat.com/history/#

This is the official Take That timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.220.197 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for discussing, I'm eager to see this resolved at this point. I can't speak for other editors, but on my own behalf I'll give in gracefully re. the 2014 date (although I will note that a) there are news articles from 2011 and 2012 that suggest Williams left earlier, and b) he has not made any significant contribution to the band whatsoever since the Progress tour and the Progressed promo stuff wrapped up). My issue has largely been with the addition of 'occasional appearances' to the Members graph, and misleading statements about the nature of Williams' non-membership at present in the article body. As long as that stuff stays out of the article, I'm happy. --Jonie148 (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies for editing without noticing this section previously. However, this certainly isn't as clear cut as the above suggests. Robbie's departure was announced - and indeed confirmed - in 2014, but the sources are clear that (unlike Jason) he never resumed activity with the band after the Progress cycle ended in 2012. To show him in the members section as part of the band until 2014 is misleading in my opinion. This is something that needs a consensus to avoid potential edit warring. U-Mos (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed --Jonie148 (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020 edits
Please comment here your justification for repeated reversions , which restore a version that goes against the initial consensus of the above section (happy to discuss that further) and the implied consensus from recent edits by multiple users. The WP:BRD process dictates that you should now discuss your desired edits; an WP:EDITWAR does not benefit anybody. Thanks, U-Mos (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Robbie officially left the group with a tweet from April 2014. Not in 2011 or 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fona2000 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for responding, but please do not the restore edits unless the changes achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. I will have to ask for admin intervention if you continue to edit unconstructively. Please also be aware that the reversion you are making is undoing multiple other recent edits. I have nothing to add to my above rationale regarding Robbie's second departure date, which agreed with. Feel free to respond to that. U-Mos (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay I promise:), let’s talk -Fona2000
 * What's unfortunate is that at the same time as writing this, you reverted the article for a fifth time. This is in clear violation of WP:EDITWAR, despite repeated warnings to stop. We are discussing now, which is positive, but only if that discussion leads to a consensus for your preferred edits should they be enacted on the article. So I've undone your edit again, and am stating very clearly that if you revert again I will request make a report regarding your edit warring here. On the subject itself, we have two dates important to Robbie's departure: the date he was last actively part of Take That (in 2012), and the date that his departure was announced (2014). Per the above, I believe that his actual activity in the band supersedes any announcement date, which can be (and is) covered in the text of the article. Same goes for the band's 1996 break-up, which I changed from the date it was announced to the date a couple of months later when they actually ceased activities as a band.
 * Other material you are currently persistently reverting is: section headings to include first names of members and wording around Gary Barlow's stillborn child. These appear to be uncontroversial edits to me, but you're welcome to discuss them too if you have any rationale for changing them back. Once more, please do not edit the article while this discussion is in progress. U-Mos (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Robbie William’s departure in 2011 or 2014?!
Hello

I was wondering why you keep changing on when Robbie left take that. No sources tells that he left in 2012 but different tells that he left the group right after “the progress tour“ in 2011 and some other says in 2014 right before the recordings of the “lll” album took place, causing Robbie became a dad for the second time.

Looking forward to here from you FONA2000 Fona2000 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * {{u|Fona2000]} thanks for reaching out. The first thing to note is that 2012 as Robbie's (second) departure date is the current WP:CONSENSUS version and show should remain unless there is agreement to change it. You have been warned about this (and even blocked from editing) previously. The Newsround source does indeed report that Robbie had left in 2011, which could be integrated into the text of the article, but this was refuted at the time, so Robbie appeared with the band throughout 2012 as a full-time member. His departure was announced in 2014, but he had not been active with the band since 2012, so 2012 is his departure date. U-Mos (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I completely disagree... Robbie didn’t have anything to do with take that in 2012, his last appearance in the group was in 2011 and he officially makes his second departure in 2014. So if you ask me I’ll say that he left on April 24th 2014. Please link me the article where it says that he was a part of the group in 2012. Fona2000 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Jason Orange didn’t attend to any Take Events in 2013 or 2014 so do you all so want to change that to 2012...? That is not right, you’re doing it all wrong. Fona2000 (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Robbie officially left in 2014 so that’s what I’m doing to write. Fona2000 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am working to preserve the current WP:CONSENSUS. Please consider taking the opportunity to revert your disruptive edits while this discussion takes place. Currently, the article reads that Williams was a member through 2012 (while the band were mostly inactive) using this source for his final appearance in November of that year. It could be argued that 2011 is more accurate - implementing this would involve editing more than just the band members section so the article agrees with itself, and also a consensus to do so. No objection to that if other editors agree. Per to WP:BRD process, you have made your edits, they've been reverted, so we're here in the discussion stage - restoring your preferred version is disruptive to the process at this time. U-Mos (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

But he left in 2014 so 2014 is the right year. Fona2000 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You'll need to present an argument a bit more convincing than that tautological statement. I'll point you once again to the importance of articles reflecting consensus on Wikipedia. --Jonie148 (talk) 15:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well so take a look at this link from the official Take That site. Check the timeline on the event happening on April 27th 2014. https://takethat.com/history/# Fona2000 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as has been discussed that is the date that Robbie's departure was announced, the wording of which is clear that he never returned after that last performance in 2012. Orange, on the other hand, reconvened with the band during 2014 and quit soon after. U-Mos (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020
It Only Takes a Minute charted 1 June 1992 not 1982 as stated in the article Mancbranch (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Robbie left in 2011, read the article before destroying it
Robbie left in 2011, read the article before destroying it, in 2012 he was only making a on/off appearance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.164.22.202 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You have produced zero sources to support your proposed changes that go against the rough consensuses out of not one, but two discussions above. KyleJoan talk 18:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging and  to this discussion per their responses during the previous ones.  KyleJoan talk 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

There's world outsite from wikipedia, do you know that? please check this link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/15164993#:~:text=X%20Factor%20judge%20Gary%20Barlow,That%20for%20the%20second%20time.&text=With%20their%20tour%20over%2C%20the,on%20his%20new%20solo%20album. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.164.22.202 (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

The date in the article says ''4. October 2011'', that's the date of his second departure;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.164.22.202 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Bless your heart for thinking that the publication date of the BBC News article is the exact date Williams departed the group;)
 * That aside, per U-Mos: The first thing to note is that 2012 as Robbie's (second) departure date is the current WP:CONSENSUS version and show should remain unless there is agreement to change it. There are policies on Wikipedia like WP:CON, do you know that? KyleJoan talk 18:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I dont think so ;) a lot of the articles on wikipedia has very much false information ;)

1. https://www.hindustantimes.com/music/robbie-williams-leaves-take-that-again/story-w3No7Ni2aadpcwxETjFoXN.html

2. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/lifestyle/showbiz/take-back-four-good-robbie-1803459

3. https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/robbie-williams-has-quit-take-that-again-83055

4. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8842756/Robbie-Williams-quits-Take-That-again-after-10m-comeback.html

5. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/oct/21/robbie-williams-announces-solo-album

Do you want me to find more new articles, about robbie williams departure in 2011?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.164.22.202 (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the ping KyleJoan. Momentarily ignoring the fact that the current revision of the page is an absolute mess, I'll state my position. When I implemented the members graph back in 2014, it was in response to much the same debates which continue now, about the precise dates of Williams' membership of the group. It was a debatable matter then, and it's still a debatable matter now. The original date the members graph stated that Williams had left was the 29th of July 2011. Since then, the members graph has rightfully undergone lots of revisions by other editors, and the consensus seems to have been that representing Williams' second departure date as 2012 was favorable. I'm largely ambivalent as to whether 2011 or 2012 is used (as long as one of the two is); my greatest desire is just to reach a firm consensus, as this aspect of the page has disproportionately been the subject of much ire and drive-by vandalisms for almost six years now.

 * Regardless of how many sources you have 93.164.22.202, you need to watch your tone, as being impertinent will make it a lot less likely that other users will support your position. Remember that many of the editors you're insulting have already put a lot of unpaid time into improving and maintaining this page. --Jonie148 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

 * As I noted in the talk page section above, the reports that Robbie had left the band in October 2011 were directly refuted at the time. This is, however, complicated by some of the above articles being dated later in that month. Further complicated by Robbie being due to perform with the band at the Olympics closing ceremony in 2012, but then pulling out, and actually performing with them later in the year - but only for one song. Certainly it was not generally accepted he had left at this time, hence the speculation around if he was involved in the return to the studio in 2014 and the later announcement that he was not. So what might be a good idea - with agreement - would be to more directly discuss these contradictions in the article, particularly the 2011 reports that he had left. My feeling is 2012 remains the best departure date to list, as he remained involved in the band's limited activities in that year. U-Mos (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This BBC News article states that Williams left twice, in 1995 to embark on a solo career, and again in 2012, so I'm in agreement with U-Mos. It is more appropriate to follow sources that report events in hindsight rather than in the moment. KyleJoan talk 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

ALERT! False information in the Take That article
Since last restoring of the article of take that, there's now very much false information on the article so the page can no longer be trusted, therefore i recommend people who wants to read whats right to check the take that article on takethat.fandom.com.

Looking forward to restore it to the right edition in march 2021. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.137.181 (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020
I need to change the image 149.22.27.24 (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Change it to what? Neiltonks (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Robbie Williams' rejoin in 2020
Williams rejoined Take That for a one/off performance i maj 2020, during the covid-19 charity gig. He appeared as a full time member, and i think that we should include it in his timeline in the article, i've been doing some researching and many newspapers in the UK, describe it as Williams' first Take That-performance since 2012's Music Industry Trust Awards. If we should make the article about williams' activity in the group complete i think we should include this in his timeline.

He didn't only make an guest appearance in the group, he rejoined the band and i think that makes a difference. Please think about it, and maybe we can discuss how we write it in the article... my example: Robbie Williams (1990–1995, 2010–2012, 2020)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.138.241 (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-52839880

What do you guys think?
 * Williams rejoined the band for one performance, so the only appropriate way to annotate this in the timeline would be Robbie Williams (1990–1995, 2010–2012, 29 May 2020), which I oppose. KyleJoan talk 08:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again

But if we aren't writing this in the article, i kinda feel like we are giving false infomation about williams' activity in the band. Robbie Williams active years in the band were from 1989 to 1995 and at the progress recordings in 2009 to 2014 right before the recordings on III, but he last preformed with the band in 2012 at the Music Industry Trust Awards. as said before he offically first left the band in 2014. and after that he had preformed with the group several times, examples in 2016, 2017 and 2018 but only as a guest. On May 2020 he offically rejoined the band for a one/off performance, after a 6 year hiatus from the group.

So in the big picture Robbie Willams active years in Take That: 1989-1995, 2009-2014, 2020 --NikolajPeter1810 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 * A couple of hours-long reunion (for a live show) is not sufficient to count as a reunion. Publicity and press for the event may suggest otherwise, but you've got to appreciate that headlines about Williams rejoining Take That are a great source of clickbait revenue for journalists, rather than an accurate representation of the situation. Jonie148 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

fan page
This entire article reads like a fan wrote it. needs a complete overhaul. Iammrjam (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free! :) --Jonie148 (talk) 08:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022

 * This is a blank request. Please use your words --Jonie148 (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Take That


text:
Talk:Cytoplasmic streaming

Untitled
Presumably cytoplasmic streaming is powered by actin / mysoin cytoskeletal movement of these organelles? SquidDNA 02:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that cytoplasmic streaming occurs in animal cells or is not common in animal cells. Correct me if I am wrong. -simmu1992 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simmu1992 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs Revising of Citations
Hello! First thing I noticed while critiquing this article was that citations number 8, 9, and 15 are all references that are at least over 30 years old and may require a more updated resource. Then I also noticed that some of the article's content was not matched with the proper inline citation, particularly under the "Mechanism" section. I feel like more information could be stated under this section with more references.

Thanks! Molnera (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Molnera

Biology
Need past KCSE question papers Maxwel Frank (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Try putting "KCSE papers" into a google.com search. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 21:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cytoplasmic streaming