text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 4

Jacobite Risings
I've been working for some time on updating Battle of Prestonpans and just found this project. So I converted the article to use the new infobox and I've created a campaignbox for the Second Jacobite Rising. But I believe the list of battles on that campaignbox to be incomplete and would appreciate help in filling it out, as well as creating a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising, which I know less about. Thanks! --Craig Stuntz 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've created a campaignbox for the First Jacobite Rising. I've chosen to list Glen Shiel there for the sake of completeness, even though it's probably not part of the 'Fifteen rising per se.  Feel free to remove it if you think it doesn't belong there. Kirill Lokshin 16:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've got the new infobox on all of the Second Rising articles. As for the articles themselves, Prestonpans and Culloden are in fairly good shape, but Battle of Falkirk (1746) needs work. I don't have any personal knowledge of this battle, but could eventually get around to doing research if no experts turn up in the meantime. I haven't touched the First Rising at all, but I'll at least do the infoboxes when I get the chance. --Craig Stuntz 18:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Battle stub
A new stub type (battle-stub) with an associated category (Category:Battle stubs) has been created. Any feedback on the text used would be much appreciated. -- Kirill Lokshin 22:01, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Battle help for the clueless
I came across Action of 4 July 1805 by some random means, and in trying to expand it found I could not find info on it outside wikipedia. Perhaps you guys might be able to point me in the right direction. Perhaps it has a different name? Sabine's Sunbird 22:52, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * One page 5 of this: http://www.cmhweb.org/news/c200507.pdf there's a mention of it, but that newsletter is pretty recent (July) and could easily have got its info from the Wiki article (created back in April). Perhaps ask the original author on his talk page? Loopy 19:50, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Dates in battle page names
User:Jaknouse has placed a WP:RM request to move Battle of the Granicus (334) to Battle of the Granicus (334 BC). He had to do this because he accedently made a mistake when moving it from Battle of the Granicus.

I have just checked the Special:Contributions/Jaknouse listing and I see that he has moved a number of other battles.

 * 16:00, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC) (Battle of the Hydaspes River moved to Battle of the Hydaspes River (326 BC))
 * 16:01, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Issus (333 BC) (Battle of Issus moved to Battle of Issus (333 BC)) (top)
 * 15:43, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC) (Talk:Battle of Gaugamela moved to Talk:Battle of Gaugamela (332 BC)) (top)
 * 15:42, 28 August 2005 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Tyre (332 BC) (Siege of Tyre moved to Siege of Tyre (332 BC))

My understanding is that battles should only have a year if there is a need for disambiguation eg Battle of the Dunes. What do others think? Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, the date is only necessary for disambiguation. The only one there that could use a year in the title is the Siege of Tyre, although we don't have articles about any of the other sieges at the moment. Adam Bishop 21:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization
I've finished fixing some of the battle categories, to the effect of: Some of the resulting categories are vague with regard to different historical states under the same name (e.g. Category:Battles of China); I'd appreciate any advice on how to best break them up.
 * 1) Categories of the type "Fooish battles" have been moved to "Battles of Foo".
 * 2) Categories of the type "Battles in Foo" have been removed.
 * 3) Articles in Category:Battle stubs are all categorized somewhere under Category:Battles by country.

Another issue that came up during this process: the subcategories of Category:Battles of the American Civil War are a mess, since many of the campaign categories only contain 1-2 battles. Would it be better to combine some of the smaller ones, or is the more "correct" scheme to be preferred in this case? -- Kirill Lokshin 07:49, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, I would love to join this "group", as I have already started a few WWI battles. If you could please edit them etc, it would be most appreciated. Anyway, visit my user page & tell me if I can join or not. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:59, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pics & Particles:
I was looking through some of the battles on here, & noticed that most of them are lacking in pictures & photographs. As my expertise ends at adding pictures to battleboxes, I was wondering if there was anyone that already had that job or knew how to load on pics so as to remedy the photolessness? I would love to help if someone told me how to load on pics. I would also be willingly eager to do research or tidy-ups on any articles if you want. If you want me to do anything just message me. Spawn Man 12:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Loading images onto Wikipedia is as simple as entering the Upload Files function below the search bar. Copyright issues are a bit trickier as most websites insist on copyrighting everything.

 * Which brings up a point that's haunted me for a while: is the digitization of an image eligible for copyright? That is, if a website claims rights to images of old artwork, can we ignore them on the grounds of Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.? I've been working under the assumption that no, we can't.

 * Unless the website in question has somehow modified the image (in which case it probably wouldn't be of interest to us anyway), it should qualify as a photograph of a two-dimensional artwork under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. There's nothing special about a photograph stored digitally (at least under the assumption that the digitization format is a standard one) as opposed to one on paper. Kirill Lokshin 16:33, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Plus:
Plus if anyone wants to (not wanting to sound too demanding), my articles on the battles of St. Quentin & Le Cateau are a bit lacking, (both of which you can find links to on my user page), so it also would be awesome if someone could fix them up (especially the battle boxes). Thanks, Spawn Man 12:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Tagging battle articles
Having noticed the templates some WikiProjects are using, I've created the following template, which could (possibly) be used to tag battle articles:

WPMILHIST

As I see it, increasing the visibility of the project would only be beneficial. However, I'd appreciate getting some comments on whether this is a good idea before I start transcluding this all over the place. Kirill Lokshin 02:12, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * No objections, then? Kirill Lokshin 09:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well.... I feel fine with the battle-stub that's currently use (see my Battle of Le Cateau), as it already conveys all the wording that is on your thingy magig (template I think), but in less wording. But I think the colour is good & will catch people's eye (& the other eye too). So my only concern is that it is too long, but other than that I think it's a good idea. If you could shorten the length I think everyone will like it hands down, unless of course you are going for the longer wording look. Anyway....Spawn Man 13:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I intended this not as a replacement for battle-stub (which is placed on the article page) but as a tag for the talk page similar to those used by other WikiProjects (e.g. here). Kirill Lokshin 13:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Gotcha, I think... But just one honest question, why would we want to put one of those on the talk page if we want people to expand the article? Sorry if I sound a bit slow, it is 1:30 am here...Spawn Man 13:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, just as I finished saving my last excerpt I relised what you were talking about...Ok, I now fully get it. But still, is there anyway you can make it shorter, just as my opinion, since you asked for one? Spawn Man 13:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've shortened the text somewhat; I'm afraid anything shorter will be too cryptic, but if you have any suggestions on the wording, they would be very welcome. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope, that was my only concern, thanks for taking it seriously...Spawn Man 13:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed one of these tags just pop up on the Battle of Kirina Talk Page. Though it's not really doing any harm there, isn't it going to be a bit redundant to mark every battle in Wikipedia as part of Wikiproject:Battles, or are there some that qualify and some that don't? Why not just use the category lists? Though I see the value of increasing the visibility of the project (and I'd be really happy to see some Battle-minded editors take a look at that article), I'm also not sure I want to see every Wikipedia article start getting tagged as one project or another (for example, this could also be WProj:History and WProj:Africa; I've also been noticing every film getting labelled as WProj:Film, which seems similarly self-evident). But then, I'm working without a lot of sleep, too, so perhaps my concerns shouldn't be taken very seriously. Thoughts? --Dvyost 23:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As I see it, the point of these tags is twofold:
 * To attract interested editors to the project.
 * To link to a place where questions are more likely to be answered promptly than on the talk pages of obscure articles (which often function like an echo chamber, since few people will have them on their watchlists).
 * Thus, they are primarily intended for the benefit of editors rather than the articles they are placed on; this is the opposite of the category system, which organizes articles but does not necessarily give editors access to any resources.

 * As far as potential conflicts between WikiProjects, it's a valid concern, but a somewhat premature one. As far as I know, there are a fairly small number of active projects, and they work in rather distinct areas, or are directly associated with one another (e.g. this project is a descendant of WikiProject History).  In any case, I see no reason (except for aesthetic concerns about banners on talk pages) why multiple projects couldn't tag the same article; the tags are not "official", and do not give the members of the project any particular rights to the article.

 * But, since I'm the principal creator of these tags, I could just be biased. Kirill Lokshin 23:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to agree in some aspects with both of you here. I don't think that the battle-stub should be placed on every article page, as some are pretty informative. But I think it's a great idea to slap this new wikiproject battles banner on every talk page that has a battle article. I agree, I get more responses from listing questions on here than on an article's talk page. But aside from that...How the heck do I vote on the next featured article page?? I put my name down, but didn't do a thing!! I did the instructions, but it didn't work. Spawn Man 01:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey, it pays to advertise...I saw Kirill placed one of his stubs on one of my articles so now I'm here. Hello all:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 01:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, participation, which was stagnant for months, has skyrocketed. Kirill Lokshin's tags, whatever concerns others may raise about them, have accomplished marvels. Albrecht 03:31, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll double that indeed... Excellent work Kirill. Now all our talk pages look all glossy & cool... But you'll still need to do a heck more battle's talk pages before you're done. I'll try & help of course... Hip hip hooray!! Hip hip hooray!! Hip hip hooray!!!!!! Spawn Man 04:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for all the kind comments! I've tagged a little over 1500 articles so far; aside from Category:Battles of the American Civil War and Category:Battles and operations of World War II, everything that's in our category tree is tagged (or should be).  I suspect, however, that there could be a thousand or more battles that are completely uncategorized; they can be found only through Special:Allpages, and require both tagging and (more importantly) categorization.  It seems this could take a while longer than I expected. Kirill Lokshin 05:09, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Retreat to the Marne
My next project will try & be the Retreat to the Marne campaign article. If anyone wants to help, complain (especially if they wanted to do it, cause I don't wanna rock the boat), hand over notes, say they'll give a peer review in the future or wishes words of encouragement, send it to my user talk. Other than that, I thought I'd let you know. Spawn Man 13:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't all answer at once......

Sorry. This seems to have become a pagina non grata for some reason – my calls for better margins on the battlebox template, for instance, have gone unanswered (although I suppose a suitable answer might be, "Do it yourself, you lazy...").

Although I consider myself something of a student of the First World War, I doubt I'll have time to do more than review some of the articles and maybe contribute a few meager scraps. I'm busy being variously accused of anti-Lusitanianism, anti-Americanism, and anti-Éirism in the various articles to which I contribute. Albrecht 17:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * My knowledge of the period in question is basically limited to a reading of The Guns of August, so I suspect I'll be unable to help with any significant addition of material. I'll be happy to assist with general revisions once the articles begin to take shape.
 * As far as the lack of activity on this page, it's most likely due to the fact that more than half of the (listed) project participants are inactive/rarely active/preoccupied with administrative work. I'll be making some attemtps to increase the projects visibility in the near future, so the problem will hopefully resolve itself. Kirill Lokshin 17:45, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll look forward to you guys reviewing it. Plus someone said my cat is insane & plots my death.... P.S I thinkit's a great idea to increase project numbers. Spawn Man 06:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Question:
If you go to my Le Cateau article, you will see that in the battle box, down the bottom, the list of battles in the Retreat to the Marne campaign. One of them is the battle of Maubeuge. In my knowledge (& a few books seem to agree with me too), the Allies retreated straight to Le Cateau from the Battle of Mons. I have read a few books & none of them seem to mention this battle, & there is practically no usable info on my google search. Should I simply delete it from the battle list? If there is no info about it, & nothing on it on here, what use is it? The only other option is to keep it there? If you have any opinions (please do), please let them be heard so I wont offend anyone's thoughts. Also, if you are actually familiar with this battle, please send any info to my user page, as we wouldn't want to delete what could be a vital part in our world's history. If no one has any objections to me deleting it, I will continue on my merry way with the campaign (as I'm eager to go). Thanx. Spawn Man 09:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The first google result seems to suggest it's an alternate name for the Battle of Mons (possibly an issue of French v. English v. German naming of battles).  You can probably remove it; if it's actually a separate battle, it can always be re-added to the campaignbox when we get an article on it. Kirill Lokshin 14:36, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was the siege of Maubeuge (see Western Front (World War I)). Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I was up all night searching through all my books that I have & only found two mentions of Maubeuge. It was on a map, half way between Le Cateau & Mons. The other mention was that it was a place that troops passed as they retreated to Le Cateau. Not very informative... But I'll wait another 24 hrs for more comments before deleting it, (as Kirill said, it can be re-added). Spawn Man 23:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I just found new info. It seems that the town of Maubeuge Was never passed through in the Great Retreat. Instead the Allies passed by it, (never actually going in). Subsequently, with the town cut from allies, it was sieged & eventually surrendered. Now a whole other matter occurs. Now that I have the info, do I include it in the Retreat To The Marne campaign? It has not real significance in the actually retreat other than that the Germans sieged it before moving on to chase the Allies. I'm amiss, please help! Spawn Man 01:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I would include it for the sake of completeness; it could probably be argued to be part of the campaign from the German perspective. Kirill Lokshin 01:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tending to agree with you there...................Spawn Man 01:17, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

How do we decide the "fictiveness" of a battle
If we have a look at battles such as Battle of Brávellir, Battle on the Ice and Battle at Finnsburg, we have battles where the fictiveness/historicity is impossible to decide. Since the principle of Wikipedia is NPOV, how do we decide whether they were fictitious or not?--Wiglaf 16:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We can look at historical research; if any (mainstream) historians argue that the batles were historical, then we can list them as historical (with references to the historians in question). I think that the "Fictional battles" labeling should be reserved for the obvious cases (i.e. battles from Star Wars) rather than getting used for merely "doubtful" battles. Kirill Lokshin 16:46, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you suggestion to reserve the "Fictional battles" to the obvious ones, such as the star war battles.--Wiglaf 17:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * By "fictive" are we referring to (1) whether the battle did happen, or (2) whether the battle is entirely a creation of the imagination? I think legendary battles are a different catagory entirely from imaginary ones, & whereas most legends have some seed of truth in them, imaginary ones rarely do. -- llywrch 00:20, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Legendary battles should be included & so should fictional battles, as they are a work of art, either by film making, artistry or writing. But I'm not saying we should include "Neo VS Agent Smith" as one of them. But battles such as Lord Of The Rings Battles or as Wiglaf said, Star Wars battles. But my other thought is, should these battles fall in our hands? Shouldn't they be created by people working on the films/novels which hold them? Such as the Starwars Group? I think Wikiproject Battles should only expand legendary & actual battles, not battles relating to movies or books. Spawn Man 00:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know:
Just so you know, I have finished creating the First Battle of the Aisne & Michel-Joseph Maunoury articles, & have finished expanding the Battle of Mons. I would love feedback on them from you, because I'm pretty proud of them Spawn Man 00:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You seem to know your facts and have presented them in your own narratives. I would mainly suggest some wording changes. If you wish I'll go in and "polish" them for you:) Also, if possible, include your references at the bottom.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, I would love for someone to "polish" them for me (use turtle wax instead of normal wax please), but without changing too much... Oh, I also don't know how to put down references at the bottom, could you explain for me how to? Spawn Man 02:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Very well, shall do! Now where'd I put that year's supply of Turtle Wax....--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh in answer to your question on references-there are no hard rules. Some prefer numbered footnotes, others (hello:) prefer to simply list their sources at the bottom with author, title and page numbers if relevent. Or if the source is online just cut and paste as an external link. On course, since this isnt a school book report, you are not required to include references, but it helps lend it, and you, greater credibility and authority. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

More categorization
Category:Battles by country is almost standardized. There are two "meta-categories", Category:Battles of Ancient Greece and Category:Roman battles, that don't fit the actual categorization scheme (each category being a single historical state/group) but instead collect several other categories related in some way. Should we
 * 1) Delete the categories?
 * 2) Keep the categories but remove them from Category:Battles by country?
 * 3) Expand the categories to cover other related groups of states (e.g. Category:Battles of the Crusader States) and keep them as a special subset of Category:Battles by country?
 * 4) Do something else with them?

On another note, Category:Battles by war is divided between "Battles of ...", "Battles and operations of ...", and a few other options. Should we standardize on a single wording, and, if so, which one? Kirill Lokshin 02:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is made somewhat more tricky because Roman Battles have now been further divided up into Category:Battles of the Roman Republic and Category:Battles of the Roman Empire. A sensible division, given the great span of Roman history but they should be SUBcatigories instead of separate ones. With regard to battles vs operations, most of the Operation XXX articles relate to WWII. In fact, it is almost impossible to discuss certain campaigns without using an operational codename at some point. So no, I don't think the wording should be, or really can be, standardized without wreaking havoc and unleashing the dogs of war :) So why don't we try, instead, to simply order battles into campaigns and campaigns into wars? Then have the wars by nation and time period. For instance, the America Civil War, would fall under both American Wars and 19th Century Wars categories.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, Roman battles were split (into Roman Republic and Roman Empire), deleted, then re-created and used as a parent category for the two. I have no objections to a single category (hopefully renamed to something like "Battles of Ancient Rome" to avoid breaking the naming scheme) instead of two, but I think sub-categories of Category:Battles by country should, in general, be kept only one level deep to avoid over-complicating the scheme.
 * As far as categorizing wars, we don't actually have a standard, for the simple reason that this project isn't "officially" concerned with wars. I would have no problems with expanding the scope (becoming "WikiProject Wars and Battles" in practice if not in name), but considering it's pretty major scope creep, I think it would need some sort of consensus from everyone here. Kirill Lokshin 12:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Good! I'm glad the whole mess of with Roman battles has been sorted out. I agree, mission creep is to be avoided. At least for now, until after we have standardized, organized and filled in enough articles on battles to work our way up to wars:)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * So, if we're going to keep "Roman battles" as a super-category to link the various "Battles of the Roman ..." sub-categories, should we rename it to something like "Battles of Rome" or "Battles of Ancient Rome" for consistency? Kirill Lokshin 21:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Battles of Rome sounds good. Ancient goes without saying. Besides, many (myself included) consider the era of Roman ascendancy to be a bridge between the truly Ancient and the proto-Medieval ages. If you really want a descrptive, though, then perhaps Battles of Classical Rome. But since Classical is often used to refer to the Greeks as well, this might only confuse things. On a somewhat related subject- There are a number of naval battles, particularlly during the 16 through 1800's, which are not called battles at all but Actions. Since most battles are named for some nearby geographical location and these took place in the wide open sea, they are named by the date or year they took place. For instance Action of 5 November 1813. Do you think we need a special catigory, or sub-cat for these? Of just try and file them under misc Naval Battles for now? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think they can be kept directly under Naval battles; they're not a class of battles unto themselves, but rather improperly named articles. For (almost) all of them, the only thing preventing a move to "Battle of ..." is that the location isn't given in the article. Kirill Lokshin 23:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These need to be renamed and reclassified as "Battles" whenever possible, or, if information is truly insufficient, we should incorporate them into the "Naval operations" sections of the relevant war articles. Albrecht 19:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We didn't come up with the names...they did. Anyway, I kinda like ACTION. It evokes the age of Nelson, Hornblower, Decatur and Perry. "Action this day, gentlemen!"--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 07:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Capture/surrender icon
A minor, modest proposal- We have the neat lil dagger † icon for battleboxes to show when a leader was killed. How about one to indicate a leader being captured and/or surrendering. Maybe a small flag (as in white flag:). Thoughts? comments?--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No objections from me, provided that a suitable icon of the appropriate size can be found. (I'll note that the usage of the dagger icon has never been inserted into the battlebox instructions, so it's pretty inconsistent across battles). Kirill Lokshin 21:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My main concern is the possible redundancy of undertaking such a task. I find the obelus useful because it denotes a sort of striking exception; it's generally uncommon for the commander of an army to die in battle. Conversely, isn't it kind of the norm for a battle to end in the surrender and/or capture of one of the commanders? Moreover, whereas the dagger denotes an outcome directly affecting the person of the commander (loss of life), it's generally understood that the one in charge of the losing side will have authorized his retreat/surrender/capitulation and will have suffered the consequences accordingly.

I'm also somewhat of a "battlebox minimalist"; I like to keep things relatively simple aesthetically. I just hope this doesn't lead to an oversaturation of "wounded" tags, "promotion" tags, etc.

But if, having given these thoughts due consideration, you think it's worthwhile and want to go ahead, and don't fear the slippery slope, I won't object either. Albrecht 23:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, my suspicion is that commanders are captured far less often than they are killed, simply because most historical battles were not battles of annihilation; defeated armies, even decisively defeated ones, generally had the opportunity to withdraw.
 * I certainly agree that this should not be taken as an invitation to create other tags, at least not without further discussion. I think, if no serious objections present themselves, we should begin inserting this on a trial basis (assuming, of course, the availability of a suitable icon).  If we find that too many battles require this, we can always remove the icons and forget the whole idea. Kirill Lokshin 00:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for your input Gents. My philosophy on battleboxes is they should convey the maximum amount of info in a minimal amount of space. A commander's death, capture or surrender is certainly a relevent and important note, which can be easily and quickly conveyed by a simple symbol. Moreover, readers seeing that might be made curious and want to read the article further for more info. I don't see where it would be abused...and if it is, well we can always exercise our editorial perogatives:) So a small flag (presumably white) should do nicely. Not if we can only find someone who know how to make one? Anyone?.....Anyone? --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, I'm no graphics artist, but here's one I put together: [[Image:White flag icon.jpg|16px]]. Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That's exactly what I envisioned! Well done!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Great Retreat (finally):
Yes! I have finally completed The Great Retreat. All must admire it, worship it... Well not actually. But I would love everyone to give me loads of feedback on it!! And if anyone would please please please please pleeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaseeeeeee put a picture or map on the article, I would be forever in debt to that person. I really want this to be a FA some time in the future. Please help this dream happen. So get out your turtle wax (I know R.D.H has a year's supply of it...) & start polishing my article & I'll jump up & down & woot woot alot. Thank you! Bye!!!! Spawn Man 09:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking good! Nice and informative, though its sometimes hard to keep track of the red line. Maybe a small box would be nice, listing the battles fought during the retreat (would go nice hand-in-hand with a map!). Good work! --The Minister of War 10:14, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * With the now spunky-new Great Retreat article, I've put it up for a peer review. I have to thank of course Kirill & R.D.H. for their maps/pics/rewrites that got the article to this stage. Anyway... Spawn Man 04:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Campaignbox
I've created a campaignbox for Georgian-Seljuk wars / Crusades containing the Battle of Basian and the Battle of Didgori, I made it because I thought that these two battles were part of the same conflict, and they didn't seem to fit into any of the current campaignboxes, I don't know a lot about the Crusades, so any input would be appreciated. Ben D. 23:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I've also created boxes for Clone Wars (22-21.7 BBY) and Clone Wars (21.6-19 BBY). Ben D. 12:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Great job! I'll just note that, in general, "Battle of Foo" should be shown simply as "Foo" in the campaignbox, since otherwise they become rather long. Kirill Lokshin 15:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * For the Georgian-Seljuk wars, they are kind of separate from the crusades...I know Didgori had some crusader presence, but the Georgians did not participate in the crusades to the south, and they already had an ongoing war with the Seljuks which wouldn't have changed whether there were crusaders in the area or not (kind of similar to the Byzantine-Seljuk wars). Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and name-shortening, I don't know how I missed that, I removed the "/Crusades" from Georgian-Seljuk wars, also about The Clone Wars campaigns, I just divided the battles at in half so one campaign box wouldn't have 22 battles. Ben D. 03:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Oxycanus

Oxycanus is a genus of moths of the family Hepialidae. There are 71 described species found in Australia and New Guinea.

Species

 * Oxycanus aedisima – Australia
 * Oxycanus aegrus – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus albostrigata – Australia
 * Oxycanus altenai – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus antipoda – Tasmania
 * Larva feeds on grasses

 * Oxycanus armatus – Australia
 * Oxycanus atrox – Australia
 * Oxycanus aurifex – Australia
 * Oxycanus australis – Australia
 * Oxycanus ballux – Australia
 * Oxycanus barnardi – Australia
 * Oxycanus beltista – Australia
 * Oxycanus buluwandji – Australia
 * Oxycanus byrsa – Australia
 * Oxycanus carus – Australia
 * Oxycanus determinata – Australia
 * Oxycanus diakonoffi – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus dirempta – Australia
 * Oxycanus discipennis – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus dives – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus eos – Australia
 * Oxycanus fuliginosa – Australia
 * Oxycanus gelidus – Australia
 * Oxycanus glauerti – Australia
 * Oxycanus goldfinchi – Australia
 * Oxycanus goodingi – Australia
 * Oxycanus hamatus – Australia
 * Oxycanus hebe – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus hecabe – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus herbuloti – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus herdus – Australia
 * Oxycanus hildae – Australia
 * Oxycanus incanus – Australia
 * Oxycanus janeus – Australia
 * Oxycanus kochi – Australia
 * Oxycanus loesus – Australia
 * Oxycanus lyelli – Australia
 * Oxycanus maculosus – Australia
 * Oxycanus mayri – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus meeki – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus naias – Australia
 * Oxycanus nigra – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus nigripuncta – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus niphadias – Australia
 * Oxycanus novaeguineensis – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus nuptialis – Australia
 * Oxycanus occidentalis – Australia
 * Oxycanus oreades – Australia
 * Oxycanus oressigenes – Australia
 * Oxycanus perditus – Australia
 * Oxycanus perplexus – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus poeticus – Australia
 * Oxycanus postflavida – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus postxois – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus promiscuus – Australia
 * Oxycanus rileyi – Australia
 * Oxycanus rosaceus – Australia
 * Oxycanus rufescens – Australia
 * Oxycanus salmonacea – Australia
 * Oxycanus serratus – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus sirpus – Australia
 * Oxycanus snelleni – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus spadix – Australia
 * Oxycanus sphragidias – Australia
 * Oxycanus stellans – Australia
 * Oxycanus subochracea – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus subvaria – Australia
 * Oxycanus sylvanus – Australia
 * Oxycanus tamsi – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus thasus – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus toxopeusi – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus tyres – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus xois – New Guinea
 * Oxycanus waterhousei – Australia

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

title: Oxycanus


text:
Chinese hamster

The Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus or Cricetulus barabensis griseus) is a rodent in the genus Cricetulus of the subfamily Cricetidae that originated in the deserts of northern China and Mongolia. They are distinguished by an uncommonly long tail in comparison to other hamsters, most of whose tails are stubby. Chinese hamsters are primarily nocturnal, however they will stay awake for brief periods, in between naps, throughout the day.

Description
Chinese hamsters grow to between 82 and 127 mm in body length (tail length 20–33 mm) and weigh 1.7 grams at birth, then as they get older can weigh 30–45 grams. Males have a fairly large scrotum relative to their body size. Their body proportions, compared to other hamster species – most of which tend to be compact – appear "long and thin" and they have (for a hamster) a relatively long tail. They live two to three years on average.

The wild color is brown with a black stripe down the spine, black and grey ticks and a whitish belly. This coloration, combined with their lithe build and longer tail, makes them look "mousy" to some eyes and, in fact, they are members of the group called ratlike hamsters.

Chinese hamsters and Chinese striped hamsters are solitary, like most hamsters other than the three Phodopus species.

Taxonomy
The taxonomic names of the Chinese hamster and the closely related Chinese striped hamster are unsettled. Some authorities consider the Chinese hamster (Cricetulus griseus) and the Chinese striped hamster (Cricetulus barabensis) different species, whereas others classify them as subspecies, in which case the Latin name of the Chinese hamster becomes Cricetulus barabensis griseus, and the Chinese striped hamster becomes Cricetulus barabensis barabensis.

Domestication
Chinese hamsters were first domesticated as lab animals, but have mostly fallen out of use. They were subsequently kept as pets (although not the pet hamster species commonly kept in North America).

Lab animals
In the past, before scientists started using other rodents, Chinese hamsters were commonly used lab animals. They were replaced by the common mouse and rat, which are more convenient to breed and to keep in small cages; however, several biotech drugs are still being produced by putting the gene for the protein into Chinese hamster ovary cells, which then produce the protein.

Pets
Female Chinese hamsters were generally kept as pets, and males used solely for breeding. Being naturally solitary, they tend to be aggressive if kept in enclosures which are too small, or are inhabited by other hamsters. They can be nippy, but quickly become tame. Once successfully tamed, they are easily handled. Chinese hamsters can be quite nervous as youngsters but, once they are tamed, can display an endearing calm and gentle character. One of their endearing habits is clinging to a handler's finger with all four paws – rather like a harvest mouse on a corn stalk.

Prohibitions
Some U.S. states, such as California and New Jersey, regard the Chinese hamster as a pest or an exotic animal, and require a special permit to own, breed or sell them.

Colour varieties
Besides the wild colour, a well-known variation in domesticated breeds is the "spotted white" or "dominant spot" Chinese hamster, which often is grayish-white all over, with only a dark stripe on its back.

As yet, there are only three colour varieties among domesticated Chinese hamsters:
 * normal / wild type
 * dominant spot or spotted white
 * black-eyed white

Normal and dominant spot are readily available in the pet trade throughout the United Kingdom, whereas the black-eyed white is extremely rare; only a few are owned by hobbyist breeders in the U.K.

In media
The Chinese dwarf hamster is the animal of choice featured in the speculative evolution project Hamster's Paradise.

title: Chinese hamster


text: User talk:169.139.251.251

title: User talk:169.139.251.251


text:
Talk:Canadian Chinese cuisine

What is the big diff between Canadian/American Chinese food?
Why are there different pages for American and Canadian Chinese food - it's pretty much exactly the same dishes. When I go to New York it's the same food on the displays and menus. Chinese Dumplings are very main stream in Toronto now...I go to Canal Street in Manhattan, in the small back streets...there are small hole-in-the-wall take-out places and that's pretty much all they serve.

The fortunes in the fortune cookies are probably different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.154.230 (talk) 03:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed grammar. David F (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of regional references
As the original poster Swingbeaver noted, cuisine is indeed highly variable across Canada in "Chinese" restaurants.

I removed his regional references to Calgary and Vancouver in the interests of representing all of Canada, also a comment that "sweet and sour" is non-existent in Canada, since here in Ottawa it's universal.

I'm not convinced that there is a black&white difference between American-Chinese and Canadian-Chinese chow mein. (See Buwei Yang Chao's fulmination against the 'dry brittle kind of noodle'.) So, I extended the main article on chow mein and combined the Cantonese and 'regular' chow mein here.

I welcome discussion here to make this representative of all Canadian Chinese takeouts, and perhaps we should retitle it to that to separate it from the many other Chinese cuisines that are appearing so rapidly across Canada. There is a similar suggestion at the American Chinese page.

I propose to (slowly) make the list of dishes encyclopedic with regards to non-English terms in takeouts.

There is lot of relevant discussion at Talk:American Chinese cuisine JohnSankey 13:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Swingbeaver 19h46, 11e Octobre 2005 (UTC) a dit:

"Jar Doo" and "Dai Dop Voy", when googled, return exclusively Canadian results. This clearly indicates their connection to Canadian Chinese Cuisine. Also, when googled, the first return I got for "Dai Dop Voy" was a restaurant in Ottawa. Calgary and Vancouver are city names that have been applied to certain dishes because it was in those cities that those dishes were created. I haven't been to VanCity in more than a decade, but I ate Vancouver Dry Ribs last night in Oakville, Ontario. I think the earlier edits were based on a lot of opinion, and a quick search of Google would have backed them up.

The fact that one user is "not convinced that there is a [substantive] difference between American and Canadian Chinese foods" is a clear indication of the need for such a wiki. The differences are profound and listed in detail on the article.

Mv2233 (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Dai Dop Voy...... There was a restaurant in my old neighbourhood that i used to visit, and this was the only meal i had there. But they called it "Tai Drop Voy".

Smiling Buddha pic not appropriate
The Smiling Buddha, now closed and stripped of that wonderful neon (preserved at the Vancouver Museum in Vanier Park, as I recall), was a nightclub, not a restaurant; another picture should be found, perhaps of Vancouver's Pender or Keefer Streets at night. "The Buddha" had its last days as an operating club during the heyday of the punk movement in the late 1970s and early 19080s.Skookum1 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Kung Pao common in BC
There's a comment in the article that this term is rare in Canada; it's anything but in BC, but unlike other Chinese cuisine here, which dates back to before the railway, I don't recall seeing it on menus (except in the then-rare Beijing-cuising joints) until the influx from Hong Kong in the 1980s.Skookum1 03:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Being a Kung Pao fan myself, I've never had any trouble finding it either in Toronto, Kingston, or St. John's, Newfoundland. I think this assertion of rarity either needs a citation or should be removed. SigPig 10:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Removed. - Cybergoth 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)\

 * Fer pete's sake, how do I cite the content of menus in "Canadian Chinese" restaurants (aka "Chinese and Western") in the 1970s and back? Get a bunch of menus from 1965 and 1957 to prove my point?  Perhaps the issue here is what "Canadian Chinese cuisine" should be referring to; types of Chinese cuisine available in Canada, or the kind of adapted Chinese cuisine long common in Canadian towns; specifically Canadian towns in the West, where the style developed, and especially in BC.  And the fact of the matter is that the style of cuisine in question evolved from Cantonese, and partially (only partially) from Szechuan.  Mandarin cooking styles were UNKNOWN to "Canadian Chinese cuisine" restaurant-goers.  Kung pao may be in St. John's and Toronto NOW, but to me it's not part of the style/format of what made "Canadian Chinese cuisine" distinct from Chinese cuisine; nor did I ever see it in "Chinese and Western" restaurants anywhere in BC up until the late 1970s (at the earliest).  This shouldn't be about Chinese food as available in Canada, but about the crosscultural Chinese-Canadian cuisine which is distinct (and as much Canadian as it is Chinese).Skookum1 07:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. However, the article made the point that Kung Pao isn't (present tense) widely available; to reflect the thrust of your statement, I'd say re-insert it to state that it wasn't (past tense) widely available until the advent of Ho Lee Chow et alii. And I agree with your premise: this should be about the unique Chinese-Canadian fusion cuisine. I assume it is analogous to some of the stuff I see on "Iron Chef" as "American style": Trout ice cream? What the h-e-double-hockeysticks were you thinking?!?", as opposed to "Big Mac, hold the pickle". So, go ahead, reinsert the Kung Pao stuff, but change the tense. Reversion is a wonderful thing, when done without rancour to a good-faith booboo. SigPig 08:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put Kung Pao chicken back on the list, without comment on it's availability or origin. I hope that makes up for the booboo. - Cybergoth 18:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Staples section re-arranged
I moved the more obvious and truly Chinese-Canadian dishes to the top of the list, added some of the English names most commonly used, as well as of course the soups. A lot of what's on the list currently, now moved lower down, do not seem to me to be the kind of thing you'd find in a "Chinese and Western" restaurant, nor do I recall seeing them on the elaborate menus at more truly Chinese eateries like the On Lok or Gain Wah (my habitues when I'm in the mood for some chicken and black bean sauce). The ones moved farther down seem like specialty dishes as opposed to common features of Canadian-Chinese cuisine; as opposed to authentically Chinese food as it is served in Canada (abbre A-C for these comments). Chow mein, chop suey, won ton, S&S pork, garlic ribs (ginger beef is a new thing in C-C, formerly A-C only but now possibly to be found in C-C restaurants) are all familiar; Lo Mein maybe. Also deep-fried prawns.....hmmmm....trying to remember what else was common in such places....

Another aspect to this article should be how Chinese cuisine has influenced the indigenous cuisine of especially British Columbia; both in homecooking, normal eating habits, and also in influence in the development of "West Coast Fusion" cuisine.....Skookum1 19:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that Toronto's Chinatown might not be the biggest in the world. However, to say that it is a common Torontonian boast about most things editorializes too much.  Thanks for your contributions though. Cybergoth 21:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Canadian bacon?
I was not aware that there was popular misconception in the US that Canadian Chinese food is simply the addition of Canadian bacon to American Chinese food. I think that part should be removed. Cybergoth 01:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOL Pretty sure that was put in as a joke; I've never heard that; I think most Americans wouldn't even know there's a difference between Chinese-American cuisine and Chinese-Canadian cuisinse, same as most of them aren't even aware we're a different country. And in much of the States, particularly west of the Rockies, the usual term (as here, on old restaurant signs) was "Chinese and Western". Matter of fact, I'd almost vote for merging Canadian-American and Canadian-Chinese cuisine into Chinese and Western cuisine which will help sort out the difference between the "indigenous" North American-adapted menu and the "authentic" ones now widespread, but claiming "Canadian Chinese cuisine" simply because they're in Canada.Skookum1 02:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows Canada is part of America. North America. So lets Merge this and American into North American Chinese food.

Ad Links Removed
I took these out:

 * Ho-Lee-Chow — Locations in the Greater Toronto Area.
 * Manchu WOK — Familiar sight in mall food courts nationwide.
 * The Mandarin Buffet — Huge buffet well-known throughout southern Ontario.
 * Wing's Food Products — Large supplier to Chinese food industy in Canada

I was surprised to see overt advertising for specific food chains and suppliers here. This is not appropriate, especially since those mentioned are explicity CHAINS, not just classic restaurants or famous mom'n'pops (like the Totem Cafe in Lillooet - best Chinese smorgasbord in the Interior. Chinese and Western, that is, not transplanted mandarin high cuisine like you might get in Kelowna.....anyway, overt ad-links are not supposed to be valid, so I took them out.  Esepcially because, hmmm, could it be that Wing's Food products has a business relationship with Ho-Lee-Chow or Manchu Wok?  Listing Vancouver's famous historical restaurants (the Pink Pearl, the Yuen Lock, the Ho-Ho) has a relevant point; promoting mall-court food chains does not.  Mentioning a chain well-known in ONTARIO when the history of Chinese-Canadian cuisine is near-entirely based in British Columbia, plus a touch of the Prairies (as opposed to Chinese cuisine in Canada, which is what the new "mandarin buffet" kind of thing is about; actual Chinese-style Chinese food for Chinese buyers; not Chinese food as adapted to Canadian culture, which is what "Chinese and Western Cuisine" is ALL about. Skookum1 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think these were put in blatantly as ads or spam. They might be of interest to non-Canadians visiting this site.  While a chain restaurant based in Ontario might not be as historic as an older mom-and-pop one in Vancouver, it is an indication of the impact of Canadian Chinese cuisine on the larger, contemporary Canadian culture.  I propose that these links be moved to a new section near the bottom of the article.  Feel free to add the names and websites of famous Vancouver restaurants too. Cybergoth 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Of the three listed, only Ho Lee Chow seems to have anything to do with Canadian-Chinese food; the Manchu and Mandarin foods are northern Chinese food as sold in North America, but they are not part of the cuisine known as Canadian-Chinese, "Chinese and Western" etc. Famous and historic restaurants, yes; chains no....the re-tooling of Canadian-Chinese to include the latter-day Mandarin culture's immigration doesn't work for me, not at all.Skookum1 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey I like/loathe mall food like anyone else, but the fact is, these chains exist and they serve "Canadian Chinese food". I think this article should be more inclusive to the whole range of Canadian Chinese cuisine, and not exclude elements which we might consider inauthentic or unpalatable.  This article shouldn't just be on historic Chinese food in British Columbia.  Please add in the names/websites of restaurants that you think are significant. Cybergoth 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although the names "ManchWok" and "Mandarin" suggest northern Chinese cuisine, if you look at their menus, they have more in common with the classic Canadian Chinese cuisine. - Cybergoth 13:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've removed all commercial links from the External Links section (i.e. I removed the whole section). See WP:EL. Kla'quot 03:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Egg Rolls
Do you think egg rolls should be on the list of staples? They've been on pretty much every menu that I've noticed. I remeber making them in my uncle's restaurant in Southern Ontario in the 70's. - Cybergoth 18:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

History section needs rewrite
Like most Canadian Chinese history pages, there's a lot of over-simplification here, some interesting details missed, and some covert prejudices built into the story (prejudices against non-Chinese history, that is). The role of camp cooks and also Chinese house servants needs respectable mention, as does the Chinese-Canadian effective lockdown on marketing gardening and wholesale produce throughout BC's history (from day one, in fact, to present), which meant that, among other things, non-Chinese cooks have been used to using bok choy and gai lan in their own cooking for many, many years. Also the opening dwells on the railway; even though the true beginnings are in the BC and California gold rushes; the railway helped spread "Chinese and Western" cookery eastwards; but the tradition of Chinese cooks catering to non-Chinese had been established good twenty-five years before the railway came along, and didn't really have to do with the railway workers as such...but cherished mythologies are cherished mythologies, aren't they? I.e. they don't have to be true to be believed; but that still doesn't make them right/true.....Skookum1 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Further to the history section problems:

 * ''Today Canadian Chinese citizens are the largest visible minority group in Canada, and Chinatowns are in every major Canadian city, with those in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montréal being the largest.

The whole paragraph this sentence ends with is of dubious relevance to cuisine, even without the Toronto brag I already took out; something more relevant to the new influx's impact on Chinese cuisine in Canada would be "the introduction of new forms of Chinese food...etc...and the redefinition of Canadian Chinese cuisine now re-interpreted to mean any Chinese food served in Canada; which is a moving of the linguistic/cultural goalposts. The newer forms are more distinctly/truly "authentic Chinese".  Point is that there's an "authentic Chinese and Western cuisine" that the new definitions seem to be deliberately blurring; there should be TWO separate sections here because of this; Chinese Canadian cuisine as it developed in isolation from China and in interaction with non-Chinese customers/palates, and the "New Chinese Canadian cuisine", which includes a lot of stuff never heard from before, and which are not part of the restaurant-going experience of joe-blow Canadians; except those with tastes in haute/exotic cuisine. It's a long way from egg foo yung and egg rolls to most of the things that have been listed overleaf, that's for sure.Skookum1 00:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is ambiguity between the "classic" (for lack of a better word) Can/Chinese cuisine and the "new authentic Chinese Canadian" cuisine in this article. Two separate sections in the History section is a good idea.  Please keep in mind that even some of the "classic" restaurants seem to have some newer menu items, perhaps in an attempt to look more "authentic" to reflect evolving Canadian tastes.  Perhaps a paragraph in the Restaurants section can address the current range of Chinese restaurants, from the classic mom-and-pops to the fast food chains to the new authentic ones?  I think that would tie-in this article nicely with the whole Chinese Cuisine series of articles. - Cybergoth 13:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Chinese and Western cuisine page
i.e. in order that the many articles which refer/Wikilink either to Canadian Chinese cuisine or American Chinese, such as Chinatown patterns in North America, Chinatowns in North America, Chinatown and no doubt quite a few others, have a common page to refer to; been pondering this for a while, partly because "Chinese and Western cuisine" is not only a specific which avoids the ambiguities of Chinese American cuisine and Canadian Chinese cuisine, as discussed in the previous section, but also because it's by far the most common restaurant sign that I can remember, at least here in Canada and as I recall also in Washington State; not sure about California. The idea is not a merge between the two American/Canadian cuisine articles (which really discuss much the same thing...), but something a little more than a disambig page commenting on the unique menu of the frontier-west and its incursions into urban/suburban life before the new era of immigration and the growth in "authentic" cuisine offerings in North America. Especially on the Chinatowns in North America page and the Chinatown patters in North America page, currently the link is only to Chinese American cuisine, which leaves the Canadian side out; and there's really not much difference, especially at the "classic" level which IMO "Chinese and Western" describes so much better. And myself, I like the dried noodles; but I was raised on the Chun King canned stuff, like many "westerners", and all the Chinese restaurants we went to used them also (including the immortal Prawn Garden in Mission, British Columbia, still there and still excellent after all these years; and still "classic" despite, as you note in the previous section, the introduction of new, more authentic dishes as well as new Chinese and Western dishes like spicy beef (invented in Calgary, as I recall). I'll dig up some "Chinese and Western" sign-pics if you want; I think one of the shots on my http://www.cayoosh.net/goldmile.html has a sign vislble, I'll have to look; 1898; but it may only say "Chinese food", I can't remember.Skookum1 01:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are describing a History of Chinese and Western Cuisine article, or perhaps Chinese and Western Cuisine (1898-1959)? - Cybergoth 04:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Something like that; the dates are more like 1848-198x, though; I don't think the "History of..." is necessary or apt, considering that it's as much an intercultural/social page, given the role of smalltown Chinese restaurants, and Chinese camp/cannery cooks through the West Coast/BC Interior/Prairies/North; 1848 being the onset of the California gold rush, and the institution of Chinese and Western cuisine lasted well into my high school years (grad 1972) and beyond. The impact on non-Chinese palates of "authentic Chinese" cuisine didn't really begin, even in BC, until the 1980s.Skookum1 06:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I recall being able to get authentic Cantonese food in Toronto's Chinatown in the late 70's. Anyways, it sounds like a good page - I'm looking forward to seeing it. - Cybergoth 13:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's certainly an overlap - as there continues to be today, in fact. The Yen Lock on Pender Street in Vancouver has been serving quality dim sum since the 1960s or earlier, and authentic authentic-Chinese food (to coin a hyphenation) has always been available in Vancouver's Chinatown if you knew where to go; and most places had a Chinese and Western menu as well as an authentic menu; often with the latter only in Chinese; the Ho-Ho, the New Diamond are old standards.  Outside of Chinatown, places like the On Lok (1 blk E of Victoria & Hastings) have dished up authentic-Chinese food well back into the '60s, maybe before (I'm too young to know when they started up; the On Lok was already established when I was first taken there in '72; it's been a favourite with non-Chinese customers because of the ample portions, cheap prices, wide variety and that it's open until 4 in the morning or so and doesn't mind serving drunks, and/or white drunks ;p ).  But the overlap continues, especially in the farther 'burbs which haven't been much sinified yet - although non-Chinese palates definitely have, and any of the Chinese and Western places in the Lower Mainland will generally tilt towards authentic nowadays; quality of ingredients and range of items much greater than before, though not the complexity or range of an authentic-Chinese restaurant; although most will still offer the classic menu items, as they're expected (BC-style chow mein, chop suey, egg foo yung, and of course fortune cookies, which AFAIK are a North American innovation - are they in the article, BTW?  No classic Chinese and Western meal, sit-down, delivery or take-out, would be complete without them).  Also, within the Lower Mainland, many small cafes which serve Western-style food for the most part, but are Chinese run, tend to offer the Chinese and Western items; "greasy spoons" but not all were greasy.  These were ubiquitous in Vancouver in the same way Chinese corner groceries were (until the advent of 7-11 and Mac's); and Chinese home-cookery was also common in non-Chinese homes, generally the canned/packaged variety like the Chun King brand I mentioned; most Lower Mainlanders learned to use chopsticks almost as young as they'd learned to use knife-and-fork; not very well, perhaps, and without the appropriate etiquette concerning the usage of the sticks, but still remarkable in terms of "intercultural fusion" or whatever you want to call it.  But outside the Lower Mainland, other than in major centres like Kamloops or Kelowna or Greater Victoria, Chinese and Western places - or Chinese cooks in Western-menu restaurants that also serve some Chinese dishes - are institutions in most small towns, and in fact something of a social anchor-point; and all of them often have a house specialty of one kind or another; not sure if deep-fried ice cream fritters are a Chinese dish or not (dairy, so probably not, huh?) but there was this one place in Yale that made them to die for.  I could rattle off twenty towns or more where I know there's a Chinese and Western-style restaurant, with or without the sign, or where an otherwise-ordinary restaurant or hotel cafe has as much of a Chinese-food menu as it does burgers, liver and onions, hot turkey/roast beef sandwiches and the usual smalltown/trucker fare etc. And the only Chinese in town may be the cooks and their families, in fact; the Chinese smorgasbord in Lillooet is a classic as is the institution of the Chinese smorgasbord, although in recent years in Vancouver the smorgasbord name - another bit of intercultural fusion dating to the founding of Vancouver, where Scandinavian loggers encouraged the Chinese cook to put out steam tables so they could eat Scandinavian-style - has become "Oriental buffet" or "Asian buffet" for the most part.  But smorgs are pretty common throughout BC, as are small eateries serving the "classic" menu, and not much in the way of "authentic" - So Chinese and Western is very much alive, even today.  I'll post a note on Chinese American cuisine before I launch this though, referring to this discussion; I'm curious as to the best way to reference the page, i.e. to lay out the definitions at the start of the page; and I'd like to dig up a restaurant sign or two for illustration....Skookum1 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, fortune cookies are uniquely "North-American Chinese". I'm pretty sure they were invented in the US.  The Chinese smorgasborg is interesting, and I'm glad you put it in the Canadian Chinese cuisine article - it really is uniquely Canadian/British Columbian.  How the restaurant business has changed!  Nowadays, a lot of the "Japanese" and sushi restaurants in Toronto are run by Chinese and Koreans!  I don't know how you want to start off the article.  A picture of a restaurant/sign would be nice. - Cybergoth 17:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Might have to take a trip to the Valley - the Fraser Valley - to find one; if the Golden Pagoda in Langley City is still there that's what its sign used to say; also the Prawn Gardens in Mission but it was rebuilt after a fire recently and I don't know what the new sign says; the old Valley Inn there is gone, I think. Otherwise it's more likely farther afield in the Interior or over on the Island; I may go to Quesnel, way up in the Cariboo, later this week, and I'm sure I'll see it somewhere en route, so I'll keep a camera handy (film, not digital, so would have to wait for cash to do the processing...).  Might be able to dig up an archival one somewhere, we'll see; that sign is almost as vintage as "Men's Entrance" vs. "Ladies and Escorts Only" on beer parlour exteriors.  About the Japanese places - I remember when all there was in Vancouver was Koko on East Hastings (still there), Edo and Fuji in Japantown (Powell St; I think Fuji's still there) and Kobe Steak House (still there); the emphasis at Edo and Fuji was on teriyaki, tempura and sukiyaki, with sushi not so pushed on western customers though likely fully available for Japanese guests (they're right near the docks); never been in Koko (means, AFAIK, "this place" in Japanese).  All of a sudden KA-BOOM and there's sushi everywhere, as well as teriyaki and robata houses, sometime in the mid-early '80s; but it wasn't until the 1990s that Chinese restaurateurs got into the act, and Koreans are relative newcomers to Vancouver in general (other than completely assimilated Korean War-era refugees); but in general I would NEVER eat in a Chinese-run sushi joint (on the advice of a close Japanese-Canadian friend - sansei I think  is the term; his parents were nisei -, who was horrified when we walked in on a Chinese-run sushi place in North Van in the late '90s; sure enough the sushi was not quite cold and we did get sick; while some of the Korean places can be quite good; still not up to par with a Japanese-run place but also generally cheaper; not to be found in the "Little Ginza" off and around Robson St, though, which is all high-end (Kamei and its blue-plate twin Kamei Royale and Tsunami are two of the best-known/highest-rated); but you can sushi as bar-food in nightclubs here, so it's a pretty wide range.  A new "Kimono Restaurant (Japanese food)" as its sign says, with the parentheses being the subtitle on the sign, just opened next to my gym at Hornby & Smithe, downtown-nervous-central; it's completely Chinese-owned/staffed, but looks to be good for teriyaki, et al. There was a time when "Oriental food" on a sign meant only Chinese; now it can mean anything, although of course the prejudice now is to use "Asian food" or, more commonly, "Asian buffet", as it's usually those places that have cross-over menus incorporating Thai, Korean, Japanese, Chinese etc.  The first Indonesian restaurant here, BTW, Rumah Bali on Main, was the first palce in Vancouver to get a five-star Michelin rating; small, dingy, but great food, still (I first ate there back around 1981).Skookum1 18:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Canadian and American Chinese cuisine
After reading these two articles, I think, due to the countries' close culture link, results in significant overlap in content. Anyone up for a merge? SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It's why the phrase "Chinese and Western Cuisine" or "Chinese and Western Food" was brought up a while back (these being name formats seen on restaurant signs, still today)...but that's a ref to the authentic style developed in North America, the greasy spoon-truck stop-corner cafe variety plus the burgers and liver/fries etc other-side-of-the-menu, rather than Chinese-from-China haute cuisine as it is now produced/consumed/available in North America as a result of large-scalle immigration on the one hand and the trendiness of gourmet food and gourmands on the other.  That issue has to be resolved, as well as maybe a merge of the two being needed, the name of the merged article is a problem.  "North American Chinese cuisine" isn't right either....Skookum1 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is the "the greasy spoon-truck stop-corner cafe variety plus burgers and liver/fries etc other-side-of-the-menu" part that overlaps. (I  have a COI issue on this as I am employed in that industry. I would not elaborate any further) SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It may overlap, but it's the original context of the terms; and I don't think COI applies in this case ;-). This isn't about your restaurant, it's about the cuisine.Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they should be merged. The content is 99% exactly the same as the American Chinese article. Kwertii (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but given the nature of the content and the older meaning perhaps Chinese cuisine in North America would be more accurate for what these articles have become; an article on the "Chinese and Western Cuisine" concept seems needed, separately, but is much harder to cite. BTW just wondering about the currency of the term "Chinese smorgasbord" - as with Skid Road, both Gastown and old Seattle lay claim to the origin of this term/concept, whcih resulted when Scandinavian loggers asked a Chinese cook to lay things out smorg-style; this is now usually called "Chinese Buffet" or "Asian Buffet" but it remains common in "Western and Chinese" restaurant offerings, and at one time was a common neon sign in Vancouver on the Dragon Inn drive-in chain.....smorgs remain common in small BC towns, e.g. teh Totem Cafe in Lillooet for one.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No sign of a vote yet, so I'll start:
 * Support with namechange to Chinese cuisine in North America (American and Canadian Chinese cuisine is an option but doesnt' quite "work", does it?Skookum1 (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support with any reasonable name. Chinese cuisine in North America is fine. Kwertii (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, but with a better name. Chinese cuisine in North America is too wordy. North American Chinese is simple, but may be confusing. Awhit003 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, name change to North American Chinese Cuisine. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, both have distinct and unique historys and developments.--Nsaum75 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/query - How so? Please explain what you mean.....house special chow mein in Vancouver or Kamloops is pretty much the same thing as in Boise or Topeka....how is almond gai ding in San Francisco different from that in Winnipeg?  The countries do  have separate histories, and distinct differences in their Chinese-related history....but I haven't noticed it in the cuisine myself.  Except for the style of take-out container (aluminum pie-pans/dishes in BC, fold-boxes in the US....)Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reading both of the pages, it's true that both the American and Canadian Chinese Food food lists have similar items. However, as pointed out above, the historical development in the Canadian section seems quite detailed and unique. Also, in Canada as far as I am aware, most people call this type of food 'Canadian Chinese' and not 'North American' etc. Shaunivanlabiuk (talk) 02:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support due to similarities between the two types of food. I agree with the title Chinese cuisine in North America. --Evice (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose while the actual food is in some way similar, the historical evolution and material conditions which brought about the foods are different in important ways detailed in the article. Chris902 (talk) 05:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the historical detail. In America, I've never heard the term 'American Chinese' (let alone 'North American'). If Canadians have a name for it, maybe that's a good reason to separate too24.144.201.15 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues
Hello. This article has been tagged as unreferenced since 2007. That is far too long. Just now, I've added an OR tag. Please find references and add them. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

List of dishes
Removed by TheRedPenOfDoom as unencyclopedic and unsourced. I agree with the latter. So, TheRedPenOfDoom, Skookum1 et al, how can we work this out? How can this be sourced? Surely, a list of items is encyclopedic. We have many list of XXXX dishes articles. What about a zillion restaurant takeout menus as refs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The same way we generally find sources for stuff - my goto would be But any content will require a source of some kind. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately google books is blocked here in China.
 * I know that citing All material...must be verifiable leads to RS, but do we really need the whole third-party magazine write-up stuff just to prove that every Chinese restaurant in Canada sells sweet and sour pork and egg rolls? We all know they do. We've all eaten it and felt terribly ill afterward. Can't we leave it at "verifiable" instead of "verified" and know that and around 200,000 more all say the same thing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * well, "you know" and claims from primary sources lead to problematic issues. If its as common as you say, sourcing should not be an issue. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  20:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In this case, what problematic issues are you referring to? That the dishes may not actually be on the menus? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Government sources e.g. CGNDB for geographic items, are PRIMARYSOURCES but we use them for titles and citations, I really don't see why scads of menu examples are not valid as sources; unless the contention is that because no academic author or perhaps cuisine writer has written an article specifically about generic Chinese-Canadian menu offerings we can't include it. If that's the contention, it's in error; that's not original research; citing examples should be valid, especially when so abundant.  Third-party sources as being suggested are exclusive as sources are not exclusive; not in cases like this.  That you can get egg roll and sweet and sour pork on menus across smalltown Canada, apposite to a facing page with "diner classics" like liver & onions, salisbury steak, cheeseburger & fries etc is a fact of life; if academics and travel writers don't write about it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor that it has any reason to be excluded from Wikipedia.  I see a lot of nouveau items on this page which aren't in "traditional" Chinese-Canadian cuisine or on the "Chinese & Western Food" menu just described, and which can still be photographed on cafe signs, are the real topic of this article, not listings of dishes now served in Canada because of the modern-era influx from China.  Whose research is "original" here?  Refuting the real world seems to be a passion to some on Wikipedia, and all too often PRIMARYSOURCES are shrugged aside when they are they are the only sources available for the subject matter.  A cuisine or travel blog might have some comments about "usual fare" for Chinese-Canadian menus/dishes, but those by wiki-definition not RS.  NOT having this items on this page, while having all kinds of things that aren't in the canon of "Chinese and Western cuisine" would be an egregious omission.Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Tibetan and Uighur cuisine
Canada has Tibetan and Uighur restaurants. Should these be included here; are they notable enough for their own articles; or are these essentially the same as the recipes served in their native lands? 142.122.150.221 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Canadian Chinese cuisine


text:
Louis Bertrand Castel

Louis Bertrand Castel (5 November 1688 – 11 January 1757  ) was a French mathematician born in Montpellier, who entered the order of the Jesuits in 1703. Having studied literature, he afterwards devoted himself entirely to mathematics and natural philosophy. After moving from Toulouse to Paris in 1720, at the behest of Bernard de Fontenelle, Castel acted as the science editor of the Jesuit Journal de Trévoux.

He wrote several scientific works, that which attracted most attention at the time being his Optique des couleurs (1740), or treatise on the melody of colours. He also wrote Traité de physique sur la pesanteur universelle des corps (1724), Mathématique universelle (1728), and a critical account of the system of Sir Isaac Newton in 1743.

Philosophical approach
Castel wrote on areas as wide-ranging as physics, mathematics, morals, aesthetics, theology and history. His philosophical approach attempted to reconcile fields and viewpoints. Castel based much of his work on analogical thinking, seeking to understand the physical and moral worlds through the discovery of analogies.

Castel's first major published work was his Traité de physique de la pesanteur universelle des corps (1724). He first attempted to systematise physical phenomena, through the mechanical action of universal gravity. He then considered a mechanistic world-view's shortcomings, from a theological and metaphysical perspective. He held humanity as central to natural philosophy, in that humans are embodied spirits whose actions, chosen with free will, affect the world around them and each other. In emphasising free will and the actions of mankind Castel attempted to counter deterministic views of man and nature.

Castel considered that true science should focus on readily experienced and described phenomena. His emphasis on the description and analysis of the perceived world was consistent with analogic thinking and phenomenal explanation. Castel actively opposed the idea of a science based on experimental methods, instruments, speculation and theorising.

The Ocular Harpsichord

Early on, Castel illustrated his optical theories with a proposal for a Clavecin pour les yeux (Ocular Harpsichord, 1725). A new series of articles, published in the Mercure de France in 1735, gave his idea wider currency. In 1739 the German composer Telemann went to France to see Castel's Ocular Harpsichord for himself. He ended up composing several pieces for it, as well as writing a description of it.

The ocular harpsichord had sixty small coloured glass panes, each with a curtain that opened when a key was struck. A second, improved model of the harpsichord was demonstrated for a small audience in December 1754. Pressing a key caused a small shaft to open, in turn allowing light to shine through a piece of stained glass. Castel thought of colour-music as akin to the lost language of paradise, where all men spoke alike, and he claimed that thanks to his instrument's capacity to paint sounds, even a deaf listener could enjoy music.

Criticism of Newton

It was in 1740 that Louis Bertrand Castel published a criticism of Newton's spectral description of prismatic colour in which he observed that the colours of white light split by a prism depended on the distance from the prism, and that Newton was looking at a special case. It was an argument that Goethe later developed in his Theory of Colours.

title: Louis Bertrand Castel


text:
Sean O'Hanlon

Sean Philip O'Hanlon (born 2 January 1983) is an English retired footballer. O'Hanlon played for Swindon Town, Milton Keynes Dons, Hibernian, Carlisle United and Stockport County.

Career
O'Hanlon started his career in his native Merseyside with Everton, but he did not make an appearance for their first team. He joined Swindon Town, initially on loan, and he became a regular in their first team squad and was made team captain after the departure of Andy Gurney in 2005.

He signed for Milton Keynes Dons in 2006 and featured regularly in their team. One of the most notable moments of O'Hanlon's career was when he scored a goal with a towering header at Wembley Stadium in the 2008 Football League Trophy final victory against Grimsby Town. He missed most of the 2009–10 season due to a knee injury. At the end of the 2010–11 season, O'Hanlon was told his contract would not be renewed, despite having made 37 appearances that season.

O'Hanlon signed for Scottish Premier League club Hibernian on a two-year contract in June 2011. He lost his place in the Hibs first team after Pat Fenlon was appointed manager. O'Hanlon left Hibs by mutual consent on 31 August 2012. He played as a trialist for junior club Bonnyrigg in November 2012.

O'Hanlon signed for Football League One club Carlisle United on 11 January 2013, agreeing a contract with the club until the end of the 2012–13 season. on 12 April 2013 he signed a two-year extension to his contract. On 4 May 2015, O'Hanlon was released by Carlisle.

O'Hanlon signed for Stockport County on 29 May 2015 on a season long contract. He was immediately given the role of captain.. He left Stockport at end of the 2015–16 season.

Management/coaching

Between June 2022 and June 2023, O'Hanlon was employed as the under-23s manager at Marine.

Honours
Milton Keynes Dons
 * Football League Two: 2007–08
 * Football League Trophy: 2007–08

Individual
 * PFA Team of the Year: 2008–09 League One

title: Sean O'Hanlon


text:
Talk:Computational physics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Serrion.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Style
The writing style in the "Challenges in computational physics" is overly verbose: "it may be somewhat of an understatement to say this is a bit of a problem" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.81.43 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 September 2005
 * In agreement with Jorgecarleitao's judgment in March on this article needing work, I have decided to bring back this section, albeit in a rewritten form; it could provide a better context. Hope it works... Ema--or (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

BSc Computational Physics
the University of Adelaide has a degree specially designed to tackle this type of physics BSc. (High Performance Computational Phsycs) (Honours) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eevo (talk • contribs) 12:34, 6 March 2006

Thought I should let readers know that the University of York (UK) does a good degree in Computational Physics. I did my Bachelor's there some years ago. Even though I have worked in a variety of areas since then, I still use the ideas and methods that the Department taught me - in fact I use them in my doctoral work now. I understand that a lot of graduates don't really use their degree subject a lot after University (no offence anyone!). If you're unsure whether to go to York or another University, be aware that York has over 350 pubs. Just thought I'd mention it. Jas 02:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI
A Croatian ip from the 193.198.(...) range replaces the article continuously with texts from. As I can't find a GFDL compatible license there, I've reverted. Also and independent of this I think the copyvio revision is no improvement compared to the prior revisions. --Oxymoron83 21:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quality of Source 4
As a relatively new editor, I'm not sure whether or not the fourth reference is sufficiently high quality for use in wikipedia. This source looks like a self-published one, which makes my dubious as to whether it can be considered stable enough.

Clarification would be appreciated. Serrion (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree a better citation would be better. But on the other hand, the author is a specialist in the field, the work is from 1997 which means that it is stable for at least 19 years, and the introduction makes a good case on where it is being cited. Jorgecarleitao (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 * First of all, I see your point on the quality of the source. That being said, I think the section it appears in could be worded better. In particular, the last sentence starts a clarification but goes about it in a relatively convoluted manner. Fair warning: I'm going to be moving some edits over in the next couple of days, but I'll try to keep them individually small so you can easily revert any you may disagree with. Thanks for the input! Serrion (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

 * I agree that the section could be improved. Don't mind modifying what you believe should be modified here. If it makes you more comfortable, work the text in a scratch page and share it here before modifying in the main text, and someone (me?) will review it. In any case, go for it, and thanks for the effort! Jorgecarleitao (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Computational physics


text:
Lauricocha, Huánuco

Lauricocha is a small parish in the central Andean highlands of Perú.

Lauricocha is located at -10.32222°N, -76.66667°W on the shores of Lago Lauricocha in the Huánuco Region. The parish consists of half a dozen houses, scattered at an elevation of 3,850 m in a sparsely populated area near the village of Antacolpa, and 25 km northwest of Yanahuanca, the capital of the province of Daniel Alcides Carrión.

25 km west of the parish there is Cerro Yerupajá (6,634 m) which is the highest mountain in the Cordillera Huayhuash and among the ten highest summits in South America.

title: Lauricocha, Huánuco


text:
Category:Catering and food service companies of New Zealand

Catering and food service companies of New Zealand – companies that provide meals prepared outside the home.


text:
User talk:72.10.103.193

April 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hyena. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Greater London. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Dl2000 (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Riley adkins

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Draft:Riley adkins, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It is unambiguous vandalism or an obvious hoax. (See section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.
 * It is an "attack page" or an unsourced biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity, or articles about living people that are entirely negative and unsourced. Attack pages, attack files and negative unreferenced BLPs are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing
 * It contains a gallery in the userspace which consists chiefly of fair use or non-free images. (See section U3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot allow non-free and copyrighted images to be used on user pages, and user pages containing galleries of such images may be eligible for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Helen (💬📖) 19:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello, I'm 3PPYB6 (public). I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Egyptian Crisis (2011–2014)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. 3PPYB6 (public) (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm GabberFlasted. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Domino theory have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:72.10.103.193


text:
Category:EC Comics

Entertaining Comics, better known as EC Comics, was a 1940s and 1950s comic book publisher in the United States founded by William Gaines. For more information, see the article on EC Comics.

title: Category:EC Comics


text:
Windows Media Components for QuickTime

Windows Media Components for QuickTime, also known as Flip4Mac WMV Player by Telestream, Inc. was one of the few commercial products that allow playback of Microsoft's proprietary audio and video codecs inside QuickTime for macOS.

It allowed playback of:
 * Windows Media Video 7, 8, 9, SD and HD
 * Windows Media Audio 7, 8, 9, Professional and Lossless

It also included a web browser plug-in to allow playback of embedded Windows Media files in web pages.

With the components installed, any QuickTime-compatible application is able to directly play WMV content. This includes the official QuickTime Player by Apple as well as countless third party players. WMV Player also allows Windows media files to be associated to QuickTime Player.

On January 12, 2006, Microsoft discontinued support for Windows Media Player for Mac OS X and began distributing a free version of WMV Player as Windows Media Components for QuickTime on their website. As of June 2015, there is no longer a free version of this application offered. Flip4Mac was retired as of July 1, 2019. "If you are a current user of Flip4Mac, or your Flip4Mac stopped functioning when up upgraded your operating system, we invite you to take a look at Switch."

Timeline

 * July 8, 2006 – Flip4Mac did not officially run on Intel-based Macs.
 * July 15, 2006 – version 2.1 of Flip4Mac now supported Windows Media Player 10 content, which was previously inaccessible to Macintosh users. This newer version also supports Intel-based Macs.
 * July 27, 2006 – version 2.1 is a non-beta release of the Universal Binary format for Mac OS X.
 * September 20, 2016 - Flip4Mac doesn't work in macOS Sierra (10.12)
 * July 1, 2019 - Flip4Mac officially discontinued by Telestream (Telestream had stopped development as of 2016)

title: Windows Media Components for QuickTime


text:
Schjetman Reef

Schjetman Reef is a supposed phantom island in the North Pacific west of Hawaii, reported discovered by the Norwegian captain Ole Andreas Schjetnan in 1868. He reported its coordinates to be 16.13333°N, -178.96667°W. The island was reported to be 1.5 nmi long (north-to-south) and 0.5 nmi wide (east-to-west). Due to a similar latitude (less than half a degree) to Johnston Atoll, it is possible that it was simply a misreading of longitude. Regardless, there is no evidence of any islands in the remote vicinity of Schjetnan's reported location, with the closest prominence of any size being a small, unnamed seamount roughly 100 miles to the east.

Since Schjetnan's discovery, various expeditions have set out to attempt to find the island. The USS Alert in 1880, the USS Milwaukee in 1923, and the USS Whippoorwill and Tanager in 1924 all searched for the island without finding it. A sighting was reported in 1990, however, by a sailor from Hawaii.

The two Norwegians Bård Sæther and Arild Solheim undertook an expedition in the S/Y Havaiki in January 2006 to find the island.

The reef continued to appear on maps as late as 1934.

title: Schjetman Reef


text:
CHPR

CHPR may stand for:

 * Cromford and High Peak Railway, a railway line in the United Kingdom,
 * CHPR-FM, a radio station in Hawkesbury, Ontario, Canada.
 * Center for Healthcare Policy and Research University of California, Davis, Research Center located in Sacramento, CA
 * Complementary Health Practice Review

title: CHPR