text:
Talk:Army–McCarthy hearings

NLG
At the time (1954), actually the NLG was listed in the Federal Register as a Comintern affiliated organization. nobs 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

(Initial & revived thread)
There's no mention of the pixie dialogue, the other exchange from the hearings that occasionally gets recounted. In connection with a discussion of a deceptive print of a photo that includes Schine, Welch says "...Did you think this came from a pixie?..."

Cohn apparently gets McC to respond: McC asks Welch
 * Will counsel for my benefit define — I think he might well be an expert on it — what a pixie is?

Most of the public would at the time have not the faintest hint of the fact that Schine and the indispensable Cohn were rumored to be lovers. Cohn may have reasoned they'd just been threatened with exposure; he or McC may have wanted to demonstrate readiness to accuse the other side (in a time when fag-hunting went along with red-hunting) of harboring homosexuals.

Welch replies (see G-srch)
 * Yes, I should say, Senator, that a pixie is a close relative of a fairy. Shall I proceed, sir? Have I enlightened you?

Welch may have been picking up the gauntlet, and perhaps making it yet clearer that he's willing to out them if that's what it takes to curb McC.

And (tho i may have the events in the wrong order), perhaps by irrelevantly going after the young lawyer Fred Fisher (lawyer), McCarthy had deprived himself of the ability to complain convincingly of unfairness, if and when Welch did the outing.

I am of course not suggesting my impressions as the basis for a mention in the article, but i urge research (the search above is one starting point) on the significance that others put on this otherwise seemingly quizzical exchange. --Jerzy•t 18:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the whole exchange was a joke, in an otherwise dull hearing; and it's typical of the humor of that day, when it was impolite to speak openly of homosexuality, especially in a public hearing. And it is in keeping with McCarthy's sense of humor & personality. And reading more into it than is there probably isn't worth the effort.  While McCarthy has been trashed as making a gay joke, etc., the context clearly reads, that it was Welch that initiated the joke ("...Did you think this came from a pixie?...") that bares no context to what was being discussed at the time.  Welch was simply losing patience in a dull hearing, and offered what today would be considered an inappropriate and politcally incorrect metaphor.  McCarthy picked up on it and carried the joke a little farther.  nobs 19:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Boredom on the part of a thoroly professional star-level atty is not very plausible to me. But my point is not about what was really intended, which i doubt can be established to a degree that would justify our treating it as fact. Rather, we might report what has been made of it.
 * For example, one page i found has made of it a story that
 * there was a private understanding reached before the hearings opened, that the committee wouldn't go after the little pinko and Welch wouldn't out the little fag,
 * Welch broke the agreement when he said "pixie", and
 * that was why McCarthy made the commie-in-your-own-office statement.
 * To the extent that it's regarded as accurate, IMO it says a lot about McCarthy's temper and/or poor judgement, and suggests Welch was a master of psychological manipulation. I can't rule out that theory having originated with the site i saw that states it as fact, but if it has currency, that currency should be be described. --Jerzy•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 21:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Yah but remember Welch made the homophobic statement first. nobs 21:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * _ _ Precisely (tho contrary to the timing in my first speculation on this talk page). I'm not sure what unstated theory the external page that posits the prior understanding was espousing.  The idea i am suggesting (and only research beyond the scope of my interests can determine whether it is an influential idea and thus whether it belongs in the article) is that Welch intentionally used the word "pixie" to violate the "understanding", bcz Welch hoped to goad Cohen and/or McCarthy into something that would convince the public that McCarthy had not a scrap of decency left.  In fact, if there was a prior understanding, Welch may have proposed it with the intention of later having the option to break it and goad them into some such ill-considered step. (I find it easy to imagine this of a patrician fixer like Welch, a guy who is demonstrably in the position to for instance give a kid the start that turns you into a James D. St. Clair who eventually gets called upon to go to the Supreme Court to make the last ditch effort to save the President of the United States.  To Welch, McCarthy should appear to be a bumbling Wisconsin red-neck brute who's terrorizing his betters and crushing a few of them, simply because no one has been brave and clever enough to sneak up and use a feather-weight weapon on the giant's most vulnerable point.  Welch should be looking for just such a way to finesse a paper tiger such as McCarthy.)
 * _ _ (And maybe it's time to make this explicit: i'm not looking for quick support for an edit of the article. If i noticed anyone adding "my theory" to the article, i'd revert unless they present better evidence than i know of, that "my" theory is an influential idea abt the topic.) --Jerzy•[[User talk:Jerzy|t]] 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I think there's something to what your saying; in retrospect the patrician Welch did somewhat goad McCarthy into speaking up which provided some comic relief in a dull hearing. But as to a prior understanding, given cultural norms of the time, etc., do you suppose negotiators really were that politically correct to agree on hiding specualtion and dirt like prior to an open hearing? nobs 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Editing, and contributing to talk, on WP can be a fascinating experience. Nine years further along a colleague has commented at User talk:Jerzy:
 * I found all your speculations great fun, all plausible, and I think you were certainly right in most, perhaps all, of them.
 * A pleasure to read.
 * Note, though, a general principle: bucolic, drunken brutes are not necessarily stupid, and even when they are stupid they are often still cunning.
 * Cheers, -dlj. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (Quoted here by...) --Jerzy•t 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see i said "McCarthy's temper and/or poor judgement" describing my own guess at Welch's assessment. Then later i explicitly speculated about Welch's attitude and assessment of McC being "a bumbling Wisconsin red-neck brute who's terrorizing his betters and crushing a few of them". But i feel i should emphasize that "bucolic, drunken [brutes]" and "stupid" are not my words, nor in my opinion reasonable paraphrasings of anything i said. (However, i admit "farm-state" would have expressed my intent far better than "Wisconsin" -- since Wisc IMO stands out among agricultural states for its sometimes highly progressive politics and its long and high-quality tradition of higher education.) --Jerzy•t 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * (This contrib is in part responsive to others' assertions in the following "(Thread added w/o clarifying which 1.5-to-3-months-previous contribs were being responded to)" section.)  IMO, most of this discussion has missed a chain involving two nuances that are important for analyzing Welch's intent:
 * There is a significant association between "pixie" and gay-baiting terms, but that between "fairy" and gay-baiting terms is 15 times as strong, which i would describe as reflecting then-current American usage where (perhaps more than presently) "pixie" meant primarily "small and playful magical being" and "fairy" primarily "protective, feminine, and winged small magical being". My reading of the dialogue is that
 * Welch goaded McCarthy with a double entendre, so that construing "you've acted like this supposed evidence popped magically out of thin air" was, for most of the gallery, most consistent with the previous direction of the discussion.
 * He may, however, have intended McCarthy to read more into it than most listeners would, and construe it as likely to be a personal attack on his secret behavior.
 * If so, he succeeded in pushing McCarthy off balance, causing him to respond in essence "Pixie??", arguably as if threatened by that single detail of the question: McCarthy probably should have ignored the ambiguity (of which the presumably predominantly straight audience would be much less mindful of than he) and responded, say, that the FBI had declassified the image itself, but the circumstances in which it was obtained could not be discussed. Instead, he gave Welch occasion to respond, to his at best rhetorical request for clarification, with a direct but superficially playful response, which some would nevertheless read as "Well, Senator, don't you know lots more than i do, about fairies and who they hang out with?"
 * Perhaps it's important to note that where a colleague inferred an opinion on my part that McC was intellectually lacking (which may or not be true), i was not much concerned with that question, nor aware of significant evidence one way or the other. I'm not sure i could have enunciated this in my years-ago contrib, but i suspect he was undermined -- "emotionally" may be the right adverb -- by the discord between his sexual practices and the homophobic attitudes i presume he attributed to those who cast most of the votes he received. And perhaps that was true far beyond the Welch incident. --Jerzy•t 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

(Thread added w/o clarifying which 1.5-to-3-months-previous contribs were being responded to)
I do not believe the terms "fairy" and "pixie" had any bearing whatsoever on Roy Cohn. I am totally unconvinced that a seasoned litigator like Welch, during a televised hearing, when homosexuality was very much in the closet, would make such references in public, especially when it could mean his own career. Watch the hearing footage for yourself--Welch was merely exasperated with the answers he was getting while trying to determine the source of a cropped photograph, which he contended changed the context of the image, using terms that commonly described imaginary things. Think about it: what words would you use to describe an imaginary source of something? Not many choices besides "fairy" or "pixie," even today. Perhaps the two words can be stretched to being applied to homosexuality, and thus many have erroneously extrapolated that Welch was making some veiled reference to Cohn being gay. It is absurd to assume there was any sort of gentleman's agreement between anyone, particularly between opposing parties, to keep the topic of Cohn's sexual preferences (if they were even known at the time) secret. I don't think it was ever Welch's intention to go in that direction and far too much attention has been brought to Welch's choice of words to get at the origin of a photograph. Wikipikiliki 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree as well--that Welch used "fairy" and "pixie" as words to describe an imaginary source, and was not targeting Cohn. Welch delivered them in a sharply sarcastic tone to make his point, which was the cropped photo came from an actual person, not a fairy, and he wanted to know who that person was so it could be determined who had the photo cropped.  Welch was a lawyer, this was a legal proceeding, and they were in a discovery process; he was not trying to "out" Cohn!  Funny that so many people assumed he was choosing those words to bash Cohn.  71.107.57.131 19:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * In the commentary track to the DVD release of Point of Order, director Emile de Antonio gives his opinion that Welch was definitely making a "dig" at McCarthy's and Cohn's rumored homosexuality with this exchange. It was his belief that the audience laughed because the recognized the joke as a reference to homosexuality. Emile de Antonio (who was no fan of McCarthy's) calls this a "vicious, absolutely a McCarthy-ite tactic" on Welch's part. KarlBunker 01:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Very interesting, although Welch still is the only one who knew his intent and I don't believe he ever spoke on the subject. Unfortunately, I wasn't in the room and couldn't poll people around me on what they thought Welch meant at that moment.  From an objective POV, without the gay overtones, the exchange was inherently humorous, and I think Welch's sarcasm was intended to draw a laugh.  While it's true some people may have taken it to mean a gay "dig," I would guess most just laughed because it was simply funny.  Since you seem to have the DVD, are you able to confirm there is an exclamation point in the opening titles?  71.107.57.131 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Argh, don't get me started on the "exclamation point" debate! :-)
 * There is no "!" in the opening title of the DVD version. However, it's possible that this was a recent change specifically for the DVD release; there's something suspiciously "clean-looking" about the title sequence. In some materials on the disk, such as the trailer, the title is shown with a "!". My impression is that de Antonio (or someone) has decided that the title is better without the "!", but there's still a lot of stuff around that includes it. KarlBunker 18:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The edit-history entry clarifies that the two preceding 'graphs are part of the same signed contrib. --Jerzy•t 12:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Senator Ralph Flanders was making similar innuendos about Cohn (and indeed about McCarthy) just days before, so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that Welch was making reference to Cohn's homosexuality. The story of a behind the scenes agreement between McCarthy and Welch is also widespread, though just exactly what Welch had promised not to mention is disputed. Still, it's not hard to believe that an experienced defense attorney, "patrician" or not, would needle the other side to provoke an emotional reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.253.101 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Organizational Changes
KarlBunker, I just want to let you know I appreciate the recent organizations changes to the entry. Things are laid out much better.--CReynolds 16:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

"Following the hearings"
i think a short entry on this topic is appropriate, but I don't think much can be made of Schine being posted to Alaska. One fact that was mentioned in the hearings is that 90% of all servicemen were posted overseas. So it seems fairly unremarkable that Schine was posted to Alaska. Seems like a reasonable middle-ground between the trenches of Korea and the beaches of Hawaii. :-)

 * Since the hearings originated from Schine's alleged preferential treatment and the hearings at times very much revolved around Schine, it's a natural progression to ask, "What happened to Schine in the Army following the hearings?" I think this section nicely addresses that question, particularly when McCarthy had voiced wishes to have Schine sent far away.  While Alaska may have been better than Korea, it must have been one of the harshest environments possible, short of frontline combat, and is interesting to note, even if nothing can be proved conclusively.  It's not as though this entire entry is especially long, in fact, I think more needs to added on the Army-McCarthy Hearings topic, which captivated the whole country for weeks and has been discussed and hashed over ever since.  If we keep slicing off things we decide might not be relevant, there won't be anything left!  71.107.57.131 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV issues
I just stumbled across this article, and I'm rather startled to see the amount of POV in this article.

It's not that it's not neutral (it is fairly neutral, from what I've read), it's that it's written from the perspective of someone trying to explain why the Army-McCarthy hearings were, rather than what the Army-McCarthy hearings were.

The Why is important, and it should be touched upon, but Wikipedia Is Not A Textbook. When I go to an encyclopedia article about these hearings, I expect to see the dates that it was convened and concluded, a list of witnesses, a list of the senators involved, who testified and who did not, and similar information.

I don't see any of this. What I do see is an article that seems to build up to "the famous exchange," as if there were only one exchange in the entire history of the committee. Yes, certainly Welch's comments are the most famous of the hearings, but they are certainly not the only famous ones.

SOFIXIT? I plan to, but I am busy, and I'm not an expert in this topic. Just be aware that I plan to make some major changes to this article in the near future, and I'd appreciate help. superlusertc 2008 March 26, 06:41 (UTC)

 * Sounds like you have some good changes in mind. You're certainly right that there's a lot that should be added to the article. The "doctored photo," the J. Edgar Hoover letter that Hoover disavowed, Eisenhower's declaration of executive privilege, maybe Welch's "pixie" dig -- all kinds of fun stuff. I've had it in the back of my head to expand this article for a while now, so if you get things rolling, I'm sure I'll be able to contribute.
 * BTW, it's a quirk of Wikipedia-speak that "POV" is generally considered to mean the opposite of "NPOV" (neutral point of view), or non-neutral. It ain't correct English, but that's how "POV" is used here-abouts. RedSpruce (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite
OK. So I've mainly rewritten the article as I think it should be. There are, however, some issues. First, I think we may need a new article on the McCarthy hearings that were not Army-McCarthy.There's a little bit in the article on McCarthy, but not enough. I added some background on the hearings here, but it's too much for this article. And second, I've got a bit of a problem with the witness list. The list that I'm seeing gives 44 public witnesses, but that might include some witnesses that were not part of the special Senate investigation. Does anyone know where the 32 number comes from? superlusertc 2008 March 30, 21:09 (UTC)
 * I should add that I don't think that this revision should be *it*, either. Just that the general layout and tone are what I'd like to see in an article. superlusertc 2008 March 30, 21:57 (UTC)

 * Some initial reactions:
 * I think the current version gives too much coverage to McCarthy's other hearings. The Army-McCarthy hearings weren't just a continuation of McCarthy's business as usual; rather they were an investigation of McCarthy--of charges against him--as much as they were an investigation by McCarthy. Although one of the purposes of the hearings was to investigate charges made by McCarthy against the army, in the end the hearings are remembered for the damage they did to McCarthy.
 * A related point is that although the Subcommittee on Investigations was McCarthy's committee, Karl Mundt took over the chair of the committee for these hearings, since McCarthy couldn't investigate himself.
 * The "Executive Sessions" section is purely about McCarthy's general practices in hearings where he held the chair; it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Army-McCarthy hearings.
 * Re the "Cultural impact" section: The Edward R. Murrow See It Now episodes that were depicted in Good Night and Good Luck were aired before the Army-McCarthy hearings. The way this is currently written appears to say the opposite.
 * RedSpruce (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the current version gives too much coverage to McCarthy's other hearings. Agreed. I added them in for the purpose of eventually splitting them off into a separate article on McCarthy's general hearings.  I don't have unlimited time, and I was hurrying to get this into some semblance of what I think would be an improvement so that I could move on from there.  We don't have any article on the non-Army McCarthy hearings, so I suppose we ought to try to make one of those, too.  Say at McCarthy hearings?

 * The "Executive Sessions" section ... doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Army-McCarthy hearings. I was confused. I thought that McCarthy might have presided over some of the executive sessions, but you are right, it was always Mundt in the executive sessions of Army-McCarthy.

 * One other note: You've been capitalizing communist. I didn't know whether it was appropriate to do so.  I will pose the question, and accept whatever the consensus is. superlusertc 2008 April 05, 00:26 (UTC)
 * Oh, wait. I see the reason why you did this.  Fair enough. superlusertc 2008 April 05, 00:28 (UTC)

Second Rewrite
I have rewritten the article to reflect what happened in terms the timeline of events and substance. The last version did not really reflect what happened in the hearings themselves. Stanton Evans book is an excellent resource, as are the other books I referenced and the transcipts themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apbalke (talk • contribs) 15:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * In the event of rewriting the text you seem to have deleted a lot of text by mistake. Please be a bit more careful! ;) --89.49.136.200 (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

 * M. Stanton Evans' book represents a minority view among historians. The rules of Wikipedia require that its articles present the majority view of authors in the field. I think there's a lot of room for improvement in the current version of the article, but "Blacklisted by History" is not a credible source, and not at all suitable as a sole or major source.
 * For Wikipedia rules see WP:NPOV, WP:Reliable sources, WP:NPOV and elsewhere. For one piece of documentation showing that Evans' book represents a minority view, see the book itself:
 * Evans, M. Stanton (2007), Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies, Crown Forum, p. 16, ISBN 9781400081059; "defenders of McCarthy in the academic/media world today are so microscopically few as to be practically non-existent."
 * Evans himself, of course, is one of those "microscopically few". RedSpruce (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Capital H
This article should be at Army-McCarthy hearings shouldn't it? Why the capital "H"? --Doradus (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Naming conventions (capitalization), I think you're right. The first word is always capitalized, the second word (in this case) is a proper noun, and the third word is not a proper noun.  I don't know if it's important enough that we need a move, though. superlusertc 2008 October 14, 07:46 (UTC)
 * Agree; a Google book search shows that "hearings" isn't usually capitalized in "Army-McCarthy hearings" ...unless of course it's being used as a chapter/article/section title, and for whatever reason, Wikipedia doesn't follow the standard rule about capitalizing all words in article and section titles. Since AFAIK an article-move won't cause any difficulty or "cost" anything, I suppose this should be fixed. RedSpruce (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

President Eisenhower?
The current version of the article doesn't mention President Eisenhower at all. Isn't this a bit strange? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN
Per notice in Talk:Joseph McCarthy, see Dispute resolution noticeboard. Location (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion was given a procedural close as other involved editors were not informed of the discussion. MoFreedom was told that he may relist the dispute with notification to other involved editors. Archived at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 67. Location (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Army–McCarthy hearings. 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/20090902224218/http://www2.english.uiuc.edu:80/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm to http://www2.english.uiuc.edu/finnegan/English%20256/Miller.htm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Army–McCarthy hearings. 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/20061208120354/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/cohn_r.html

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) 09:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wanted: upload of doctored photograph of Schine, Stevens, Bradley and McCarthy Aide Francis Carr
As noted in the article. During the hearings, a photograph of Schine was introduced, and Joseph N. Welch, the Army's attorney in the hearings, accused Cohn of doctoring the image to show Schine alone with Army Secretary Robert T. Stevens. The photo in question is pictured at and. The originals are presumably part of the Army-McCarthy [Hearings, U.S. Senate, 1954 - Photographs and other Graphic Materials Sound Recordings Textual Records: collection at the National Archives. The National Archives has a wonderful program allowing people to request and scan these materials and get them online, as noted at Meetup/NARA 4. Is anyone up for doing that, or getting Life or the Stanford Daily to provide licenses to their copies? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Army–McCarthy hearings


text:
Allophycocyanin

Allophycocyanin ("other algal blue protein"; from Greek: ἄλλος (allos) meaning "other", φύκος (phykos) meaning “alga”, and κυανός (kyanos) meaning "blue") is a protein from the light-harvesting phycobiliprotein family, along with phycocyanin, phycoerythrin and phycoerythrocyanin. It is an accessory pigment to chlorophyll. All phycobiliproteins are water-soluble and therefore cannot exist within the membrane like carotenoids, but aggregate, forming clusters that adhere to the membrane called phycobilisomes. Allophycocyanin absorbs and emits red light (650 and 660 nm max, respectively), and is readily found in Cyanobacteria (also called blue-green algae), and red algae. Phycobilin pigments have fluorescent properties that are used in immunoassay kits. In flow cytometry, it is often abbreviated APC. To be effectively used in applications such as FACS, High-Throughput Screening (HTS) and microscopy, APC needs to be chemically cross-linked.

Structural characteristics
Allophycocyanin can be isolated from various species of red or blue-green algae, each producing slightly different forms of the molecule. It is composed of two different subunits (α and β) in which each subunit has one phycocyanobilin (PCB) chromophore. The subunit structure for APC has been determined as (αβ)3. The molecular weight of APC is 105,000 daltons.

Spectral characteristics
Cross-linked APC

As mentioned above, in order for APC to be useful in immunoassays it must first be chemically cross-linked to prevent it from dissociating into its component subunits when in common physiological buffers. The conventional method for accomplishing this is through a destructive process wherein the treated APC trimer is chemically disrupted in 8M urea and then allowed to re-associate through in a physiological buffer. An alternative method can be used which preserves the structural integrity of the APC trimer and allows for a brighter, more stable end-product.

Applications
Many applications and instruments were developed specifically for Allophycocyanin. It is commonly used in immunoassays such as FACS, flow cytometry, and High Throughput Screening as an acceptor for Europium via Time Resolved-Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer (TR-FRET) assays.

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

title: Allophycocyanin


text:
Talk:Unit of measurement/Format of articles about units

Discussion on format moved here from Talk:Metre
Consider, I want to know how many nanometers in a meter. I type 'nanometer' in search, and I get directed to metre. Nowhere does it tell me. Only when I follow the 'See also' SI prefix do I get my answer in a round-about way. Many readers wouldn't know what SI is, nor would they consider looking there for the answer. Say I typed 'nanometre' in the search I get a different page that does answer the question.

Micrometre page tells me how many micrometers in a meter, but Centimetre and Picometre redirects back to Metre. The pages could do with some cleanup and consistency and with consideration for the different spellings of metre (meter). -- CraigKeogh 05:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I fixed nanometer to redirect to nanometre. Gene Nygaard 06:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You can see from the history that there used to be articles at picometre. I agree that it was fool-hardy to get rid of them.  At that time, the info about various prefix combinations for the eliminated articles was included here under 'metre'.  However, since then, someone has lost sight of the plan, and has failed to insure that that information remains here.  I think all of those articles should be re-created, since that attempted reform has obviously failed miserably.  Gene Nygaard

 * Then, when we have a full set of prefixed articles, we could merge and redirect all those silly 1 E-9 m and the like articles to the more useful (more likely to be searched for, easy to link) prefixed units such as nanometre. Gene Nygaard 06:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Why do you consider 1 E-9 m etc. to be 'silly'? Like the Eames film Powers of Ten, it organizes objects by size, which is an interesting way to cross-cut experience. --Macrakis 14:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am glad the individual articles for have gone. The meaning of each term is very simple but the articles managed to make it look complicated. I would rather include such terms in a clear and standard way within the article about the unit. This is the approach taken in kilogram (not done very well) and in bit (done very well).

 * I agree with you that 1 E-9 m etc are silly and should be abandoned. Bobblewik 23:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

 * (moved from Bobblewik talk page)This in in response to your redirection of all the "1 EX m" pages to metre, without any discussion(that I have been able to find), or explanation. Those pages are useful, and used by many people - redirecting them without explanation verges close to vandalism.  I have reverted your changes, and I look forward to your explanation of them.  Please excuse the shouting in the subject line - I was just disturbed by what appears to me to be a unilateral, unexpected removal of quite a large amount of content from the current version of the 'pedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * (moved from Bobblewik talk page)I agree with JesseW above. I have also undone your redirects to watt, kilogram and metre.  Note that you also created a large number of double redirects.  -- JamesTeterenko 22:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As with Macrakis, I like these articles. I know that a few months ago, I spent some time traversing through them because I found them interesting.  If these articles are redirected, is someone planning on merging the content into Orders of magnitude (length)?  If not, are you suggesting scrapping the content completely?  If consensus is reached on this topic to redirect them all to the same place, please:
 * check for and fix the double redirects
 * In the edit summary, link to the discussion where consensus was reached
 * -- JamesTeterenko 16:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Guys (JamesTeterenko and Macrakis) in particular. The whole set of unit articles is a mishmash of inconsistency. We could have a main article for each SI unit and 20 subarticles (1 per prefix). But what we have is main articles that often do not even give the official definition clearly and early in the article. Some unit articles have no subarticles and are the only source of explanation of prefixed multiples. Others have a few subarticles and some have have many. I don't think any have 20. The number of subarticles appears to be random. With a few exceptions, the subarticles are statements of multiplication, references to other prefixed articles and fairly low added value content.

 * Handling prefixed multiples within the main article is simple, scalable and comprehensive. This is presumably why it was done with kilogram, bit and byte.

 * From the discussions above, it is clear that some user enquiries would get directed to an individual page about the prefixed unit. Other user enquiries would go to the main page about the unit. I noted the desire for a cleanup in consistency and agree with it. I followed the exortation to be bold with my edits and took action. I did not act to disrespect you or any of your work. My action has involved:
 * Revised the article style with the objective of clarity.
 * Revised the article style with the objective of consistency between different articles about SI units.
 * Listed *all* the prefixed versions of the unit within the main article.
 * One of the benefits of SI is simplicity. It would be ironic if an article about an SI unit does not look simple. Furthermore, the benefits of prefixes is best explained when you see them all together. Showing how a kilometre relates to a millimetre is not difficult in a list. The individual articles of prefixed units made it look complicated.
 * There seem to be two major issues:
 * 1. How to provide comprehensive support to people seeking knowledge about units and prefixes.
 * 2. How to provide comprehensive support to people seeking knowledge about orders of magnitude.
 * My main interest is (1). If I am not mistaken, your main concern appears to be with (2). I am interested to read more from yourself and others. Bobblewik 17:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * There is often more to it than the information about the units themselves. Orthography, redundancy in symbols with other things sharing the same symbol, external links specifically applicable to a certain prefixed unit.
 * Damn it, Bobblewik, if you are going to do this, follow the rules. No loss of information.  Did you see the JamesTeterenko comment below about Kilowatt (album)?
 * So tell me, where in the metre article will I find the information that used to be included in the micrometre article, concerning the alternate spelling of this unit: "A micrometer is also a name for a measuring instrument."?
 * Where in the metre article do I find the information about the millimicron being an old name used for the nanometre, which used to appear in the nanometre article?
 * How many more tidbits of information like this have you carelessly thrown away? Gene Nygaard 04:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * To answer your specific points of loss:
 * micrometre: 'alternate spelling', 'measuring instrument'. The text was kept and moved by me to the metre article. It was deleted in this edit: 21:25, 11 September 2005 Centrx http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=23060757&oldid=23060686
 * nanometre. 'millimicron'. The text was kept and moved by me to the metre article. It was deleted in the same edit: 21:25, 11 September 2005 Centrx http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metre&diff=23060757&oldid=23060686
 * Perhaps I should have kept track on what other editors were doing but it is difficult.
 * Yes, I deliberately selected and edited other content during the move. I note that when Jmp tried a merge with minimum editing of content, Rktect complained about exactly that (18:48, 27 September 2005 UTC Talk:Historical_weights_and_measures). It is difficult to please everybody.
 * Yes, perhaps I should have carried the link to Kilowatt (album) across, or created a disambiguation page. I may have not given that link the priority that it deserves. Mea culpa. If anyone wants to resolve that, they are welcome to help out. I am convinced that the benefits of a strategic cleanup of unit articles is worth a little effort. Bobblewik 12:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Then I stand corrected. You did the right thing on those, Bobblewik.
 * The problem, of course, is that we don't have a "differences" page to compare when information is moved to one article or another. So when you are changing the articles to redirects, it is incumbent upon you, the one who knows, to make sure that all the information ends up somewhere—even if you don't think it is significant.
 * Then even if you remove it right after that in a separate edit, at least other editors will be aware that it is being removed. But it should involve that separate edit after the information is moved.  That's the main point I'd like to make.
 * A secondary point is that in some cases the information that would clearly have been relevant in the subsidiary article will be considered peripheral and irrelevant in the main article, by editors who are unaware of the history of the combination of these articles. So we editors who are aware of what is going on need to be aware of this problem, and to explain why some of this information needs to be retained after these moves are made.  Gene Nygaard 12:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You make fair points. Separating the edits can be helpful i.e. copy first, save, then revise content and save again. In cases like this it can be convenient for audits of the history. I will try to make more use of that procedure.
 * It can also be reasonable for editors to be unaware of the redirects and the grand scheme. I agree that we need to watch out for it. I think part of the problem was due to a user objection to mentioning prefixed multiples in the base unit article. Hopefully that specific part of the problem will not be so great once the scheme settles down.
 * I note that when trying to implementing the scheme for hertz, I moved all the subarticles correctly (I hope), certainly in good faith. Unfortunately, I saved Megahertz by mistake without a summary. This got reverted with the comment that it was a bad faith redirect. Most of the content is a duplicate of Radio frequency, is order of magnitudes, or is about computers that seems to me to be less than vital. I created Orders of magnitude (frequency) as a repository. Feel free to see if you can succeed where I failed in getting megahertz moved to hertz. Bobblewik 14:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We are getting too many colons, so I am continuing on the left. I don't have too big of a problem with what you did. Yes, please, be bold. A couple of us had a problem with what you did, undid it, now we are chatting. This is how it is supposed to work.

So, now to the issue at hand. My main concerns are that I do not want to lose encyclopedic content, and I want Wikipedia users to get the information cleanly (i.e. no double redirects). I agree that we have two issues, which you have labelled (1) & (2). Since (2) is not your key interest and is the set of articles that I believe have value, I think we can settle to leave those alone. (If someone else wants to offer another idea, I'm open to discuss it. I am not stuck on leaving it as is, but I do think the content is of value.)

That leaves us with issue (1). I am comfortable with removing the unit + prefix articles, but only if we address my concerns of not losing content and keeping things clean. To do this, I suggest: What do you think? -- JamesTeterenko 22:24, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * for pages that are currently nothing more than a dictionary definition which is easily understood in the main article: just redirect to the base unit
 * for pages that have some other content: move content into the appropriate article & redirect to the base unit (e.g. merge examples in Zettametre to 1 E21 m & redirect Zettametre to metre)
 * for pages that include other meanings as well as the unit of measure: redirect to base unit & link to it at the top of the base unit article. (e.g. when kilowatt is redirected to watt a link to Kilowatt (album) should be placed at the top of watt)
 * when you create a redirect, fix all the double redirects

 * Excellent four bullet points. That could work well. Sorry that I forget the double redirects. I am aware of the problem and I forget about it sometimes. I wish the problem of double redirects could be solved in software. If a solution is not forthcoming, a way for editors to search Wikipedia for (new?) double redirects would help. I hope others will comment on the plan you have outlined. Bobblewik 11:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok. As long as the content is not lost, I am happy with any solution.  I put in some work cleaning up the 1 EX m articles, but if someone wants to merge them all into one page, or do some kind of transclusion, I have no particular objection.  It was the fact that you redirected before merging the content that I objected to.  Good of you to be working on cleaning up this section! JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting all these moves User:Centrx has just nuked all the content from the old pages that was moved here. I would suggest that you get the metre page 100% right and THEN do the redirects *after* a good discussion and notice in the talk all the other unit pages. - SimonLyall 07:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In the interest of retaining content, the moved content might could be temporarily appended to the end of this article; though it would be messy, it would be no less messy than what the article was in the changes of the past few days. The other parts of article, though, ought to remain the same, for the reasons abbreviated in the edit comments. - Centrx 20:46, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on format moved here from Talk:Volt
There seems to be an effort to format the unit of measurement articles in a standard way. While this is a laudable goal, some choices are being made that I think seriously diminish the utility of Wikipedia to someone who is not already knowledgeable about the subject, moving more in the direction that the first poster in this discussion complained about:

 * The lead to the articles is cut to the bare minimum of text, relying on links to supply all information.

 * For derived units, the "Definition" section consists solely of an equation with no text whatsoever. e.g.

 * 1 V = 1 W/A = 1 m2·kg·s–3·A–1

Such a definition is useless for anyone not knowledgeable in physics, and not very useful for a physicist. It is not even the formal definition, which is "the potential difference across a conductor when a current of one ampere dissipates one watt of power." The rubric "1 W/A" doesn't say that to very many people.

 * The definition section is followed by a table of "SI multiples" which is of limited value at this point in the article to a nonspecialist who is trying to find out what a volt is, making them more likely to just give up. Most specialists already know what mega, kilo, milli, micro, nano etc. mean.

 * The text definition is relegated to a section called "Explanation" but informal language that might give a nonspecialist a hint is excised.

 * A section called "Origin" says who the unit is named after; valuable information, but that is not what origin means.

I believe the lead paragraph in articles about technical subject should strive to give an average reader some idea of what the subject is about and what the it means. Rigorously accurate technical definitions and discussions should follow a more informal introduction.

I'm not sure this is the best place to raise this issue; if someone knows a better one, please suggest it. --agr 12:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The table of SI multiples should be there, if the multiples redirect to the article for the main unit.
 * I agree that it is important to have the information about the eponym in the article.
 * It is also good to spell out other units, at least on first use, rather than often-cryptic symbols, even if they have a link. Gene Nygaard 09:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is also the question of where the table should appear in the article. I think it should be toward the end, perhaps just before the table of other units. --agr 12:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on format moved here from Talk:Coulomb
I somewhat agree on the list of prefixes, but other unit articles have them and there are conversion factors given here with obscure prefixes. As to I C = avogadro's number electrons being a common misconception, I never heard it before. Many believe a good way to spread such memes is to debunk them in popular articles. People who never heard of them before learn of their existence and a good part of the time do not remember if they are true or false. Citing a conversion factor that is five orders of magnitude different seems enough to me. --agr 14:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We can link to the prefixes, like zC
 * I would completely disagree about debunking them. Who would think such a thing?  Anyway, I don't see many references online so I probably got the "common misconception" meme from this talk page.  I don't have a problem with it being removed.

Talk:Avogadro's_number — Omegatron 15:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't feel strongly about the table of prefixes, but others seem to be for keeping them. See Talk:volt. I objected to a lot of the recent changes to SI unit articles and have been trying to fix them, but I can live with the unit prefix tables. Spirit of compromise and all that. --agr 12:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the point. Just link to the prefix or spell it out on the first use.  When is someone going to use a hectocoulomb, anyway?
 * Also you could use a template if they are all the same table. — Omegatron 15:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I object to including a table of prefixes with every unit. The list is, in my opinion, vain and worthless. Few of the prefixes are ever seen in use with the base unit, and many of the prefixes refer to quantities with no physical meaning (since you can't have a charge smaller than that on an electron, or that order of magnitude). The coulomb article already refers to the SI article, which explains how the prefixes work for *all* SI units. Please remove the table as it bulks up the article with no net information benefit. We love to be prolix on Wikipedia...you'd think a project with 100,000 editors would be more concise. Padding belongs in high school essays, not here. --Wtshymanski 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for format of unit articles
Based on what I have seen happening with unit articles, I suggest that units articles are made more consistent. In the absence of any proposals, I suggest the following information in this order:
 * Spelling variations.
 * Symbol.
 * Statement of whether it is an SI unit.
 * Definition in words.
 * Definition in equation form.
 * Origin of the name
 * Selected conversions
 * History
 * See also
 * External links

I was not particularly keen on stating the multiples. A link to prefixes should be adequate so I have some sympathy with those that delete the table of multiples as unnecessary. The current situation of having some subarticles for multiples is inconsistent and is the worst of all options. I think readers might benefit from some combination of:
 * a table of multiples spelt out
 * a link to SI prefixes
 * sections on selected multiples that have useful content

I certainly think the articles should be made simpler and more clear. What do others think? Bobblewik 22:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The intro should (as they now generally do) state the physical quantity that is being measured. If the unit is part of some other system (cgs, English customary) that should be mentioned too.  I would include the person the unit is named after in the intro as well, unless it is a long story. Having a heading for what is usually a single sentence is overly pedantic.  An explanation section is appropriate where there is something to say. As much as possible, the beginning of the unit articles should give the lay reader some idea about what is going on. To that end, some examples of the unit's use may be appropriate. Of course non-SI unit articles should include a conversion to SI.
 * For SI units, at least, I would include the full prefix table, but towards the end of the article. The compelling argument for me is that if someone encounters yottaflob and does a search on it to find out what it means, they ought to be taken somewhere, preferably the flob article. They shouldn't be expected to know that yotta is a unit prefix and to search on "yotta" and then on "flob". That means every combination needs to be spelled out somewhere, and the unit articles seems the best place for it. And the hard work has already been done.
 * The counter argument seems to be that no one uses most of the prefixes in connection with a given unit. I recently edited the farad page which had said that the only prefixes used were micro, nano, pico and atto. Well, there are now kilofarad supercapacitors available. The reason for the prefix system is to anticipate unknown uses. Perhaps we could highlight or mention separately the more commonly used prefixes.
 * I'd also suggest a template for all unit articles, with links to Units of measurement Metric system SI Conversion of units  and other major articles.
 * Here is my revised format suggestion:

 * Intro
 * Unit name
 * Spelling variations
 * Symbol
 * Statement of whether it is an SI unit, base or derived, or part of another system
 * quantity being measured, with link
 * Origin of the name, if simple sentence.
 * "The flob (Fb) is the Yablovian customary derived unit for frambulence. It is named after Julius P. Flob, the noted 19th century masticator."

 * Definition
 * in words
 * in equation form
 * for non-SI, an SI conversion factor (" 1 Flob = ...")
 * Explanation, as needed. E.g. other uses, expository info, etc. For non-SI units indicate where used (region, field of study, ...).
 * Selected conversions (other units of same measurement quantity ("1 sneergle equals 123.45 Fb), generally not prefixed or compound units unless important)
 * History
 * Examples of use
 * Table of prefixes
 * See also
 * External links
 * Units of measure template (TBD)
 * --agr 14:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the point of the table of prefixes? — Omegatron 16:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Please look at the second and third paragraphs of my comments above ("For SI units, at least, ..."). --agr 17:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * You make fair points, agr. Here are some further thoughts of mine:
 * I think the origin of the term deserves its own heading but it isn't a big deal. Perhaps it should be near the history section since it is time related. In many cases, that is where it was before I moved it. I think unit articles should start with clear succinct and quotable information that enables readers to match the quantity to the unit and equations. Additional information such as origin and history are of secondary importance to the reader that needs quick and easy reference material.
 * For the reasons you suggest, I think the 20 multiples (prefix+unit) should be listed in the main article for each SI unit. I don't really care where it is within the article, so the bottom is fine by me. With non-SI units, the prefixes do not actually belong to them. The kilotonne and larger multiples should be listed but I am not so sure about unlikely multiples such as millitonne and dekawatt hour.
 * There could be a reference to the relevant Orders of magnitude  article. This would allow us to keep most of that sort of material out of the main article. So if anyone wanted to know amazing facts about kilotesla and megatesla, they could go to a single article rather than multiple orders of magnitude articles.
 * Selected conversions. As you suggest, they should be selected rather than comprehensive.
 * Other than that, your list seems fine to me.
 * As far as the table of prefixes is concerned, I would prefer not to have them. But the current situation of inadequate sets of subarticles is worse than having a simple table in the main article. The example given by agr of a search for yottaflob seems a reasonable test case. The current situation is not good but if there are other solutions than that proposed, I would be interested in them. Bobblewik 18:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I am unable to find any hardcopy reference that repeatedly lists *all* the SI prefixes for *every* unit. All the units work the same and take the same prefixes - a simple reference back to the SI article should be sufficient. Many of the prefixes, when applied to the unit, have no physical representations. --Wtshymanski 22:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You are right, it should be sufficient to just link to the SI prefix article. I am sure that you are also right when you suggest that no hardcopy reference lists each prefixed multiple for each unit. But Wikipedia is not hardcopy, it is hypertext. Personally, I would be satisfied with just a link to the SI prefix article. But the reason for the inclusion is not for people that enquire about the base unit and go directly to the main article, it is for people that do not. An objective is to provide support for a request for yottaflob. Currently there is an inconsistent mess whereby some prefixed multiples have an article to themselves and some don't. If we add 20 definitions of the prefixed multiples to the main article, we have a scalable comprehensive solution and we can eliminate the random collection of subarticles.
 * I can't think of a better solution for cleaning up the mess of subarticles. If you can, it will be welcome. What do you think about them? Bobblewik
 * Merging them into one or keeping them separate should be decided on a case-by-case basis. See megabyte for one example.  — Omegatron 00:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked at megabyte but I don't know what I am supposed to be looking at. What are you trying to say? Bobblewik 00:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Compare kilojoule, megajoule, kilobyte, and megabyte. We decided to keep each byte article separate and provide a navigation template for all of them instead of merging into byte.  — Omegatron 02:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand now. Do you think you can get those opposed to tables of prefixed multiples to agree to it? Bobblewik 11:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Although Wikipedia can be a hardcopy it most frequently isn’t used as one and if it is, it is most often a single printed out article.
 * It’s in my opinion convenient to see a short reminder list of prefixes in/as the conversion section of metric (not only SI) units, see e.g. de:Vorlage:SI-Präfixe, followed by details on very frequent ones (e.g. cm) or such with a certain history of interest (hPa, daN) possibly in sections of their own and a note on which prefixes make sense in physical reality (YF certainly doesn’t), if not all apply (Ym and ym are useful, though seldomly used).
 * All prefix+unit articles, e.g. centimetre and centimeter, and symbol articles (e.g. cm), if not disambiguation pages, should be redirects to unit. I’m a little uncertain about gram and kilogram, because although SI, in which kg is a base unit, is the international system nowadays it would strike me as inconsequent and biased to make gram redirect to kilogram instead of the other way around. That means I like a lexical lemma concept better. Otherwise we would have a bunch of stub articles like this:
 * “A millifoo (mf) is a bar unit of baz.
 * 1 mf := 0.001 f.
 * See also: SI prefix Category:Unit”
 * The orders of magnitude articles (1 Ex y) are useful in principle. To be so in practice, they need all to be filled consistently. I’m not sure whether they should contain, among RW examples, all units and measures.
 * Christoph Päper 15:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Sounds good to me. If I understand it correctly, there are several activities being proposed:
 * Redirect articles of SI multiples (e.g. centimetre) to the article of the main unit (e.g. metre). I see no problem with gram being redirected to kilogram. I would not want kilogram to redirect to gram. The SI base unit of mass is unique in having a prefix. As far as readers are concerned, clicking on 'gram' would result in the kilogram article where the information is held. In information delivery terms, that is no different to clicking on kilometre and getting metre. If people really think Wikipedia readers cannot cope without a gram article, I could tolerate an exception whereby gram has an article to itself.
 * Ensure that the article of the main unit makes a reference to each multiple. Thus somebody clicking on a Yottaflob link gets redirected to the flob article where Yottaflob is defined. The working proposal is for a table of prefixes, but that is just one method.
 * Minimise examples such as 100 pettafarads is the capacitance of blah blah in unit articles. Examples will be deleted or moved to repository articles such as Orders of magnitude (capacitance).
 * Ensure greater consistency and ease of reference within unit articles. Suggestions have been made on this page. For example, the official definition should be provided early in the article and distinct from surrounding text. Bobblewik 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Redirection to base units
I do NOT agree with merging everything into their base units, it disrupts the narrative flow, and information is being lost. Please do not redirect like that without establishing some consensus! Fawcett5 17:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * How long does one wait for this consensus? After over a week of cleaning this article up you're the only person to disagree with what I'm doing. And, what exactly is it that bothers you?  You say information is being lost. I ask you "What information has been lost?"  As to your narritive flow: I say that this is not the place.  There is simply no room in this article for a narrative of every unit in every measurement system ever used.  That is why we have History of measurement, Historical weights and measures,  Metric system, Centimetre gram second system of units, SI, Imperial unit, US customary units, gallon, litre, yard, English unit, Ancient Roman weights and measures, Ancient Greek weights and measures, metre, kilogram, etc. Or would you suggest we merge this entire narrative here? Jimp 3Oct2005

I am not complaining about the cleanup of this article per se, I am opposed to Bobblewik going around and redirecting perfectly good articles like Megawatt to their base unit. In his edits he claimed that the consensus for doing so was established on this talk page, and I dispute that such consensus has been established. The fact that there is no room here is exactly why things should not be redirected to the base unit. This is a perfect example of where Summary style should apply. Fawcett5 20:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, I now I see what you're talking about. Yeah, my mistake, I'd thought that you were talking about what's happening at this article.  Actually this issue becomes rather sticky when you consider that a base unit in one system may not be a base unit in another.  For example, isn't the base unit of length in cgs the centimetre whereas in SI it's the metre?  Now there's food for thought. Jimp 4Oct2005

 * To avoid this kind of confusion in future and reduce the size of Talk:Units of measurement I've put this discussion on this new page. User:Jimp 7Oct05

I don't think it's good to simply redirect commonly used units such as the megawatt and the kilowatt-hour to their base units. Certainly, these articles should link to their base units. However, energy bills are in kilowatt-hours, not watt-hours, and power stations are specified in megawatts, not watts. Redirecting these makes as much sense as to redirect foot to inch, or to redirect both to length. I guess in the extreme, we could redirect everything to one enormous article called information or something similar. (->

IMO the question for is, what makes it easiest to find the information?, and I think articles on both gram and kilogram are justified, as are articles on megawatt and kilowatt-hour. These are all commonly used terms with plenty of scope to be reasonable-length articles, rather than remaining forever stubs. It's acceptable to redirect MWt and MWe to megawatt, but redirecting all the way to watt makes the linkage from articles which use these terms far less useful, so it's to be avoided.

Similarly, for historical units, that is, units that were once more commonly used than they are now, and will therefore be found in historical articles. For example, should centimetre redirect to metre, or to cgs system? Both redirects would be arguable; Which is preferable will depend on the nature of the link or the search that has led the reader to this place. So, the better solution is a short article (not a disambiguation) that links to both articles for more details. That's what wikilinks are for!

There's also a POV consideration. Almost everyone currently supports the SI system in general, but not everyone in all circumstances, there's quite a variety of viewpoints in fact. Slavishly redirecting to SI units could therefore be seen as a form of advocacy. Andrewa 13:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

PS I do agree with the redirect of watt electrical, but I think it and MWt should both point to MWe (or alternatively all to Megawatt). The other two are mainly used in the context of the MWe, so in practice it's a sort of intermediate unit, derived certainly but also itself the source of other unit definitions. Andrewa 14:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think units with prefixes should redirect to order-of-magnitude pages. For example, Nanometer should redirect to 1 E-9 m. This presents users with pertinent information (if you search for "nanometer", a list of examples illustrating the scale of a nanometer seems appropriate), and if a user really wants to get to Metre, he/she can follow a link from 1 E-9 m, or just type in "meter". I'm being bold and implementing this myself; leave a note on my talk page if you have any objections. —Keenan Pepper 01:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki
One thing that is irretrievably lost when prefixed units are redirected to the root word, or to kilogram in that case, is the interwiki links to the prefixed units in other Wikipedias. Most of the time, this isn't any big loss; nonetheless, we should be aware of its existence. Gene Nygaard 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Linking not involving the prefix
Bobblewik has taken it upon himself to start linking units in the form nanometres (which shows up as nanometres), now that he has redirected all the prefixed units. I think this is a particularly bad idea. Better to use the redirects ( nanometers ), or probably okay to avoid the redirect by using explicit piping of the form nanometers, so that the whole word is highlighted as a link, IMHO.

Using the redirects gives us the additional advantage of still being able to use the "What links here" function to find articles using a particular prefix.

The problem is that people seeing only the "metre" part in blue, with the "nano" or other prefix in black, are less likely to click on it if it is the prefix they don't understand. And that, of course, is most likely going to be what they don't understand, especially for units generally used by most everybody, such as meters, grams, litres, watts, volts, and the like. Gene Nygaard 14:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought links were supposed to be that way. If people think the whole word should be linked, that is fine by me. Bobblewik 15:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Changing redirects to base units to redirects to orders of magnitude
User:Keenan Pepper (talk) has been changing the redirects from prefixed articles to the orders of magnitude pages rather than the base units.

I think that is a bad idea. Better to restore the articles under the prefixed units and to throw out the orders of magnitude pages, in my opinion, though I'm not suggesting that they be thrown out. I really do think that the individual articles for commonly used prefixed units (especially if they have pecularities in their usage and history, or lots of interwiki links and the like), and redirects for less commonly used prefixed units, is the way to go. Comments? Gene Nygaard 02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I was thinking of the reasons a user might search for a prefixed unit like "nanometer". It seems much more likely that users would search for "nanometer" because they want to understand the scale of a nanometer, than because they've never heard of metric units. Therefore Metre seems like an inappropriate article to redirect to. 1 E-9 m is better because it gives an impression of how big a nanometer is in terms of molecules. Also, Meter is easier to find from 1 E-9 m than the other way around; if Nanometer is a redirect to Meter, then users might never find 1 E-9 m even if that's just what they're looking for.

 * On the other hand, it might be better to have a real article at Nanometer and move the scale examples there, making 1 E-9 m a redirect. "1 E-9 m" is a rather cryptic title to those unfamiliar with computer exponential notation. —Keenan Pepper 02:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I like that idea more the more I think about it. We should have an article on Nanometer and a section called "Examples of things that might be measured in nanometers" or something. That would take the place of 1 E-9 m, 1 E-8 m, and 1 E-7 m, I suppose. —Keenan Pepper 02:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

 * We have just been going the other way. It is trivial to explain a multiple and unprefixed unit together. It is more difficult to explain when the same information is spread over 22 articles. I cannot imagine explaining nanometre to somebody without mentioning metre and terms for other multiples such as millimetre and micrometre.

 * The explanation of millimetre is simple with the explanation of metre and the associated multiples. The concepts are simple and non-technical. I don't believe anyone would seriously explain a millimetre as 1 E3 m. Bobblewik 12:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Digging up dirt on prefix unit pages
I was editing an article on a pharmaceutical that gave its dosage in micrograms. I was shocked to see that the wikilink redirected to the base unit article. The only information about micrograms on the kilogram article is the multiple and symbol. Digging through page histories, I also came across the magnitude pages such as 1 E-9 kg, and saw that that information had been merged into one large chart called Orders of magnitude (mass). Because both of these (base unit page, and magnitude chart) are so extensive, its difficult to locate the information on the prefix unit. I would be into the idea of recreating at least some of the more notable prefix unit pages, and perhaps organizing the bulk of the information in an infobox. I worked up a rough idea User:Andrew c/unit here. I understand completely that this information is redundent if you go to a number of other sources. However, I find it helpful to have this information on a smaller scale. What do others think?--Andrew c 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, and I think the order-of-magnitude articles and the prefixed unit articles should be merged. For example, 1 E-9 m (quite an ugly and cryptic title as it stands) should redirect to nanometer, which would have a basic definition and then a list of lengths on the nanometer scale. —Keenan Pepper 23:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yeah, why does nanometer redirect to 1 E-9 m? Who in the world is going to search for 1 E-9 m? Anyway, I had only been looking at the mass pages. It appears that someone has merged and redirected all the individual orders of magnitude pages for mass, but that hasn't been done for length yet. This of course raises the question of where the individual order pages (such as 1 E-9 m) should redirect (if they aren't kept). For mass, they redirect to the BIG chart (Orders of magnitude (mass)). You suggest redirecting to the individual unit pages if they ever get recreated (perhaps per my initial proposal above?). Good ideas, I'll wait for more imput before being too bold. BTW, do you have any criticism for the infobox template idea on my userpage? --Andrew c 00:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it looks great. Let's hope the idea doesn't get shot down. —Keenan Pepper

 * I suspect nanometer redirects to 1 E-9 m to get around the metre vs meter argument. Personally, I suspect both should redirect to nanometre. This isn't just Anglo-centric facetiousness. In the U.S., metric units are not generally considered standard use, certainly not relative to any other English speaking country. In the vast majority of English-speaking countries that routinely use these units (and for the vast majority of English-speaking people who routinely use these units), "metre" is the standard spelling. This convention would also disambiguate the unit from the measuring device for when people do searches. Rhialto 06:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


text: User:Tristessa de St Ange/Sandpit

title: User:Tristessa de St Ange/Sandpit


text:
Talk:Gary Hoey

Birth
I've had some trouble finding Hoey's exact birthdate for the info box. Most sources I've read indicate he was born in Boston although I did read one that indicated was born near Boston. --Before 05:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * In this interview Hoey states he grew up in Lowell, Massachusetts. Another one gives the same place of origin.  AllMusic concurs, so that's three reliable sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Auditioning for Osbourne
The article read that Gary auditioned for Ozzy in 1982 to replace Randy Rhoads. That's wrong; Gary says he auditioned in 1988 (when Ozzy was looking for replacements for Jake E. Lee) and that the job went to Zakk Wylde. Fixed it up. Phil Carter 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This needs updating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.165.90.23 (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Hoey. 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/20070119045232/http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/002733.html to http://www.modernguitars.com/archives/002733.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) 11:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

problematic article, storytime
article has unsourced assertions, numerous, some notable and many needing multiple sources for inclusion. tidying up, Saintstephen000 (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Gary Hoey


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship by organized religion

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Censorship by organized religion
As written, this article is just an anti-religous screed. There is certainly a neutral, scholarly article that could be written on this topic, but that is far beyond my expertise. As written, this article should be deleted.--TheJeffMiller 04:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

 * keep: This article on the thought-stopping techniques of religious sects should be kept.  At least two similar articles, moral compass (which garners 4x as many goofle hits as moral panic) and thought police (4x the hits of thought crime), have recently fallen prey to the VfD process, while thousands of articles with dubious notability are spared.  The propensity for such hasty deletions may, itself, stem from a pervasiveness of intolerance toward the questioning of authority fostered, in part, by certain religions.  Ombudsman 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wackymacs 13:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: while the article needs considerable rewriting and expansion, this is an important topic and shld not be deleted hastily. have edited out some pov material Doldrums 12:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: this can be made neutral and doesn't even look that bad in its present form. It needs wider coverage, though. -- Kjkolb 14:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: Can't see anything overly POV about it, it's a fairly neutral description of some examples of censorship by organized religion. Could be expanded, certainly, but that's no reason to delete. --Last Malthusian 15:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this material is better covered elsewhere, in Censorship and under the articles for the various religions. (And as of now there's not much content.) —Wahoofive (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I lean towards agreement with Wahoofive that this information could be better covered in articles about the respective religions and works mentioned. I fail to see any real reason to keep this article around under the current name.  That being said, it has been in clean up a very short time and I'm going to wait to vote to see if anyone adds content that makes me change my mind about the value of this article.--Isotope23 15:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was undecided about this article but Wahoofive and Isotope23 have, I think, really put it in perspective; the only elements of the article which are about "censorship by organized religion" rather than "censorship by " are uncited personal-essay claims. Waiting to vote to see if someone adds something of substance, but what's there now isn't convincing me that the topic is sound.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it's a valid topic (and in my opinion it is), it shouldn't be deleted, even if it needs a lot of work. That's what cleanup is for. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cleanup and expand per Jacquelyn Marie above. -- Cactus.man  ✍  09:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jacqui. Xoloz 15:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, valid stub at this point. MCB 22:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * just barely keep. valid topic and material which could help form some basis for this article, but not very good at all yet.  Mozzerati 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and rewrite I agree with the deleter pielover87
 * Keep as per Ombudsman.

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Perry Smith

cleanup
This article is a good start, but needs some wikification, grammar, etc. cleanup. Brycem 04:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Perry Smith


text: User talk:68.194.99.153

title: User talk:68.194.99.153


text: Talk:Mike Shuster

title: Talk:Mike Shuster


text:
User:Moverton/SeptemberStyle

background:#F0F899;border:solid #C0C899 1px;color:inherit;

title: User:Moverton/SeptemberStyle


text:
Cave Hill, Saint Lucy, Barbados

Cave Hill, St. Lucy is in the Parish of St. Lucy on the island-nation of Barbados. Cave Hill, St. Lucy is a coastal area located on the north-eastern Atlantic Ocean side of the island. The beaches of the Cave Hill, St Lucy area are much rockier and rougher than the west coast, this is due to the turbulence of the Atlantic Ocean's waves.

title: Cave Hill, Saint Lucy, Barbados


text: Category:2007 Atlantic hurricane season

title: Category:2007 Atlantic hurricane season


text: Category:United States senators from New Mexico


text:
East Cambridge, Cambridge, Massachusetts

East Cambridge is a neighborhood of Cambridge, Massachusetts. East Cambridge is bounded by the Charles River and the Charlestown neighborhood of Boston on the east, the Somerville border on the north, Broadway and Main Street on the south, and the railroad tracks on the west. Most of the streets form a grid aligned with Cambridge Street, which was laid out to directly connect what is now the Charles River Dam Bridge with what in 1809 was the heart of Cambridge, Harvard Square. The northern part of the grid is a roughly six by eight block residential area. Cambridge Street itself is retail commercial, along with Monsignor O'Brien Highway, the Twin Cities Plaza strip mall, and the enclosed Cambridgeside Galleria. Lechmere Square is the transportation hub for the northern side. The southern half of the grid is largely office and laboratory space for hundreds of dot-com companies, research labs and startups associated with MIT, biotechnology firms including Genzyme, Biogen and Moderna, the Athenaeum Press Building, light industry, an NRG Energy power station (formerly Mirant Kendall), and various small businesses. This half of the neighborhood is generally identified with Kendall Square. Along the waterfront are several hotels and taller apartment buildings.

History and development
East Cambridge was originally an island at high tide, surrounded by marshland. The Millers River, called Willis Creek in colonial times, passed just to the north. The shoreline is shown as Lechmere's Point on Revolutionary War maps, and was the landing point for British troops en route to the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

The investors who constructed Craigie's Bridge encouraged the creation of the grid (which originally only extended to Charles and Sixth). By 1844, the island was connected to destinations on the mainland via a small number of roads: Harvard via Cambridge Street, what is now Kendall Square via Third Street (then Court Street), and two roads to Charlestown/Medford (Gore and Monsignor O'Brien Highway – formerly Bridge Street; this was before Somerville split from Charlestown).

The area became host to the Middlesex County courthouse designed by Charles Bulfinch; industries like soap, furniture, and the Boston Porcelain and Glass Company; merchants; lawyers; and residences from factory worker cottages to the upscale "Quality Row" and "Millionaire's Row".

Freight service between neighboring Charlestown and Lowell opened on the Middlesex Canal around 1802, while the Middlesex Turnpike connected Broadway with points north around 1810. The Boston and Lowell Railroad began parallel freight service in 1835.

The Fitchburg Railroad opened on the north side of the neighborhood in 1843, while the Grand Junction Railroad (later Boston and Albany Railroad) was constructed on the west side in 1847. A B&A rail yard north of Binney and Portland fed freight tracks which ran down neighborhood streets (some of which can still be seen) to industrial customers from Rogers and Potter Streets. (The curve of the yard can still be seen on an industrial building on Fulkerson Street, formerly Ninth.) The quirky Meigs Elevated Railway, a steam-powered monorail, ran as a demonstration project in the late 1800s. "East Cambridge Begins at The Tracks", a controversial slogan in the early 20th century, challenged neighborhood honor between the residents of East Cambridge and Wellington-Harrington.

Considerable landfill expanded the street grid to nearly its modern configuration by the 1920s, connecting with the surrounding neighborhoods but leaving the Lechmere Canal and part of the Broad Canal. The Miller's River has since been completely filled, except for a small remnant under the I-93 Charlestown interchange.

From 1895 to 1940, there was a wide public park between Commercial Street and the Charles River. Designed by Charles Eliot, it was called The Front; part of it was sold for private development in 1950. Another riverside park was eliminated by the Museum of Science, which opened on the Charles River Dam Bridge in 1951. Around 1956–57, additional ramps, referred to as the Cambridge Viaduct, were installed to double the capacity of Memorial Drive under the Longfellow Bridge. The ramps split the road into two carriageways, westbound using the original First Street underpass, and eastbound using the new viaduct. The new configuration prevents safe pedestrian access to a stairway to the Longfellow Bridge, requiring a longer path of travel than by following the original seawall.

The high-rise Middlesex Jail was constructed in 1971 on top of the former Cambridge Superior Courthouse.

The 1978 East Cambridge Riverfront Plan resulted in the redirection of traffic to Commercial Street, improving a narrower strip of parkland along Cambridge Parkway for recreational use. A widened Binney Street, the riverside apartment buildings, the CambridgeSide Galleria, and the re-landscaping of the remaining Lechmere Canal with access to The Front were also enabled by this plan. The plan envisioned relocating Lechmere Station to the north side of Monsignor O'Brien Highway with a pedestrian overpass.

Since the late 1990s, East Cambridge and its neighbor Lechmere Square have undergone a gentrification process, as old factories have been converted into condominiums and office space. The neighborhood is currently the site of most of large scale developments in Cambridge, including North Point, which plans over a dozen residential towers. In 2011, several new restaurants opened in the Kendall Square area. The relocation of Lechmere station was made part of a land swap arrangement to be paid for by the NorthPoint developers, but later became part of the Green Line Extension. The new station opened on March 21, 2022.

Demographics
There are predominantly Irish and Portuguese natives, with a mix of Polish and Italians along with professionals who work in Boston and Kendall Square. It is predominantly a middle-class neighborhood, with over 96% of residents working in white collar industries.

Per American Community Survey, in 2019 East Cambridge had a population of 12,254 residents living in 5,816 households. The average household income was $140,245. 64% of them were United States born citizens, while 12.64% were citizens from abroad. 23.25% of residents were not United States citizens.

Since 2005, the average household income has risen and real estate values have increased significantly. The boom in Kendall Square area has brought a lot of development and modernization to the area.

Notable residents
Dorothea Lynde Dix became an advocate for the humane treatment of the insane during the Antebellum era, during which time she volunteered as a Sunday school teacher in East Cambridge.


text:
Reto Ziegler

Reto Pirmin Ziegler (born 16 January 1986) is a Swiss professional footballer who plays as a left-back for Swiss Challenge League club Sion.

Ziegler has played top-flight football in seven different countries. He earned 35 international caps for Switzerland and played at both the 2010 and 2014 FIFA World Cups.

Early career
In the summer of 2004, Ziegler signed a contract with Tottenham Hotspur, which was initially meant to begin on 1 January 2005, when his contract with Grasshoppers expired. However, the two clubs – reportedly through the initiative of then-Tottenham sporting director Frank Arnesen – agreed to an immediate transfer, and Ziegler joined Spurs in late August of that year.

Tottenham Hotspur
Despite being just 18 years old, Ziegler soon made his debut and became an important member of the team under both head coach Jacques Santini, who left in October after just a few months in charge, and his successor, Martin Jol. Ziegler featured mostly at left midfield but also played a few matches as left full-back, often switching position with Timothée Atouba, another versatile left-sided player with the team at the time.

Ziegler featured in 31 matches in all competitions that season, including 23 in the Premier League. He showed great promise and improvement, and became popular with the fans for his attack-minded play on the left side and good passing ability. One of his most memorable moments from that season came in the home loss to Arsenal. Near the end of the game, he played a delicate chipped pass to Frédéric Kanouté, who scored to make it 4–5. Another memorable moment was in the 1 January 2005 match against Everton, where he scored his first goal en route to a 5–2 Tottenham win. At the time, it was his only goal of his professional career. At the end of the season, he was named the JSM Young Player of The Year, an award given to a young Tottenham player by its junior fan club.

In the summer of 2005, Ziegler was sent on loan to German Bundesliga club Hamburger SV, where he featured in 11 league matches and 3 UEFA Cup matches, but was criticised by manager Thomas Doll for a poor attitude and rarely played more than a few minutes per match. He was recalled from the loan by Tottenham in January 2006, only to be put back out on loan, this time at another Premier League club, Wigan Athletic. He played with Wigan until the end of the 2005–06 season, receiving five starts and five substitute appearances in the Premier League and one start in the FA Cup, performing well but not spectacularly. He also appeared as a substitute in the 2006 Football League Cup Final against Manchester United, a 4–0 defeat.

Ziegler returned to Tottenham for the 2006–07 season and featured in four matches, including starts in the League Cup against Milton Keynes Dons and in the UEFA Cup against Slavia Prague, as well as a substitute appearance against Manchester United in the Premier League. On 31 January 2007, he joined Italian Serie A club Sampdoria on loan until the end of the season.

Sampdoria
On 18 February 2007, Ziegler played his first Serie A match for Sampdoria against Parma. He scored his first goal in his tenth Serie A appearance for the club against Messina on 21 April 2007. In May, Spurs brought in young left back Gareth Bale, and Ziegler opted to sign for Sampdoria permanently on 3 July 2007. During his first season, he was in and out of the starting line-up, and most of his appearances were substitutions.

Ziegler finally managed to retain his place more regularly during the first half of the 2009–10 season. After a string of substitute appearances, he became first-choice left back. During the winter transfer window, he was linked with a move to Juventus. Having just secured his place in the starting 11, he refuted the transfer rumours saying that he wanted to continue his run in the starting line-up in hopes of being selected for the upcoming FIFA World Cup with Switzerland.

Since his contract would expire on 30 June 2011, in January 2011, Ziegler was linked to Milan, as Sampdoria opted to gain some cash. However, he did not leave. Instead, Sampdoria sold its striker Giampaolo Pazzini and let Antonio Cassano leave as a free agent. The team subsequently performed poorly and were eventually relegated to Serie B.

Juventus
Ziegler joined Juventus on a free transfer on 26 May 2011, having signed a four-year contract. He passed a medical on 25 May.

Fenerbahçe
On 2 September 2011, Fenerbahçe announced they were holding discussions with Juventus and Ziegler to loan him for the 2011–12 season. The next day, it was announced that all parties had reached an agreement for his loan. On 22 April 2012, Ziegler scored the first goal in the derby match against Galatasaray, which Fenerbahçe won 2–1.

Lokomotiv Moscow
After his spell with Fenerbahçe, Ziegler was loaned to Russian Premier League side Lokomotiv Moscow.

Fenerbahçe (second spell)
Ziegler returned on loan to Fenerbahçe on 31 January 2013 until the end of the 2012–13 season.

Sassuolo
On 20 August 2013, Sassuolo confirmed it had acquired Ziegler on loan from Juventus for an undisclosed period and fee.

Sion
On 2 February 2015, Ziegler transferred to Sion in his native Switzerland, signing a six-month contract until the end of the season. He would later sign a new contract with Sion and would play for the club until the end of the 2016–17 season.

FC Dallas
On 2 January 2018, MLS club FC Dallas announced the signing of Ziegler. In the 2018 season, he was the club's primary starter at left center-back. He scored four goals and was sent off a team-high three times. Ziegler's contract with Dallas expired following their 2020 season.

Lugano
On 25 February 2021, Ziegler joined FC Lugano.

Return to Sion
On 25 December 2022, Ziegler signed a 1.5-year contract with Sion.

International career
Ziegler is a former youth international and was in the Switzerland U-17 squad that won the 2002 U-17 European Championships.

Ziegler made his full debut for Switzerland in a 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification match against France on 26 March 2005, helping his team secure a point through a 0–0 draw at the Stade de France. He gained two more caps before drifting out of the frame and was not named to Switzerland's squad for the 2006 World Cup.

For the Swiss U-21 team, he scored a late free-kick against the Netherlands in September 2008 to send Switzerland through to the play-off round of the 2009 UEFA European Under-21 Championship.

On 19 November 2008, Ziegler scored his only senior goal for Switzerland, a powerful left-footed strike against Finland which won the Swiss the match, 1–0. He was selected for the 2010 World Cup squad. He started at left back and played the full 90 minutes in all three matches in the group stage. Switzerland did not advance out of the group. Ziegler was selected again for Switzerland's 2014 World Cup squad. This time, however, he did not appear in any matches.

Personal life
Ziegler's brother Ronald also played as a professional footballer, including for Swiss side ES FC Malley.

He has been married to Swiss former alpine skier Elodie Rudaz since June 2017. The couple have two daughters.

International

 * Score and result list Switzerland's goal tally first, score column indicates score after Ziegler goal.

Honours
Grasshoppers
 * Nationalliga A: 2003
 * Swiss Cup finalist: 2003–04

Wigan Athletic
 * Football League Cup runner-up: 2005–06

Fenerbahçe
 * Turkish Cup: 2011–12. 2012–13

Sion
 * Swiss Cup: 2014–15

Lugano
 * Swiss Cup: 2021–22

Switzerland U17
 * UEFA U-17 European Champion: 2002

Individual
 * Swiss Super League Team of the Year: 2016–17

title: Reto Ziegler


text:
Spring Gap Mountain

Spring Gap Mountain runs southwest northeast through Morgan and Hampshire counties in West Virginia's Eastern Panhandle, rising to its greatest elevation of 2237 ft north of "Spring Gap", from which the mountain takes its name. The gap is the source for Dug Hill Run, a tributary stream of the Little Cacapon River.

Spring Gap Mountain is a mountain ridge with its southern point rising north of Slanesville between Noland Ridge 1161 ft and Sideling Hill. North of Spring Gap, the mountain reaches its highest peak and continues northeast with the Little Cacapon River meandering by Neals Run along its western flank. The northern end of Spring Gap Mountain is located south of West Virginia Route 9 southeast of Paw Paw.

During the French and Indian War (1754–1763), Major General Edward Braddock's march from Winchester, Virginia to Cumberland, Maryland took him and his men across Spring Gap Mountain. Braddock and his men camped atop Spring Gap Mountain because of the abundance of fresh drinking water at the mountain's "Spring Gap." From the mountain, Braddock and his men traveled downhill to the Little Cacapon River, which they followed to Fort Cox on the Potomac River.

title: Spring Gap Mountain


text:
User:Moverton/OctoberStyle

background:#774400;border:solid #ff9900 1px;color:#ffff00;

title: User:Moverton/OctoberStyle


text:
Category:United States senators from New York (state)

People who have represented New York in the United States Senate.


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Face eating

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Carbonite | Talk 19:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Face eating
Appears to be a hoax. No mention of the tribe cited found via Google. A strong burden of proof for this is required, and is lacking from the article. C HAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. C HAIRBOY (☎) 04:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, unless references are provided, etc. By the way, does anyone know if there's a speedy deletion tag for this kind of article? --DannyWilde 05:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a speedy WP:CSD since G1(nonsense) doesn't apply to hoaxes unless they're "unsalvageably incoherent". --rob 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although it does say "This is not a joke"... that adds credibility to any article. References please. -Eisnel 05:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete rather disguisting hoax. --rob 06:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not verified. Gazpacho 07:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, inane. --Agamemnon2 10:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, poor hoax. Xoloz 16:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Category:Federal lands in Nebraska

title: Category:Federal lands in Nebraska


text: User talk:71.36.69.102

title: User talk:71.36.69.102


text:
Talk:Austin City Limits Music Festival

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 20 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nellybelly19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Magic City Hippies article
I think someone should create a page for Magic City Hippies the band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveenvpai (talk • contribs) 22:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving Lineups to Separate List Article
I think it would make more sense for the line-ups to be in their own separate list article organized by year. This would help eliminate some of the clutter on this article. In the next week or so, I'm thinking of making this change and creating the new list article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.12.191 (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Austin City Limits Music Festival


text:
List of storms named Georges

The name Georges was used for two tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean.

 * Hurricane Georges (1980) – Category 1 hurricane looped across the north Atlantic Ocean without causing any reported damage.
 * Hurricane Georges (1998) – Category 4 hurricane that wrought death and destruction across the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.

The name Georges was retired after the hurricane in 1998 and was replaced by Gaston in 2004.

title: List of storms named Georges


text:
Bob Sabourin

Robert Patrick Sabourin (March 17, 1933 – July 9, 2020) was a Canadian professional ice hockey player, coach, and general manager. A left winger, he played one game in the National Hockey League (NHL), for the Toronto Maple Leafs during the 1951–52 NHL season. He later played in the minor leagues, eventually joining the Jacksonville Rockets of the Eastern Hockey League in the 1960s. He subsequently became their head coach and general manager, serving with the team until they folded in 1971. Afterward he remained in Jacksonville, where he formed an advertising company with partner Jimmy Murdock to promote concerts, professional wrestling, and other events. He later owned the skating rink Skate World (now Jacksonville Ice) and owned another hockey team, the Jacksonville Bullets, which folded in 1996. He died on July 9, 2020.

title: Bob Sabourin


text:
New Haven Senators

The New Haven Senators were a professional ice hockey team that played in the American Hockey League during the 1992–93 AHL season. The team played their home games at the New Haven Coliseum. The Senators were known as the New Haven Nighthawks. from 1972 to 1992. The team changed their name to match their new parent club, the Ottawa Senators.

The market was subsequently home to:
 * Beast of New Haven (1997–1999)
 * New Haven Knights (UHL) (2000–2002).
 * Bridgeport Sound Tigers (2001–present)

Individual records

 * Goals: 23 - Greg Pankewicz
 * Assists: 44 - Scott White
 * Points: 60 - Martin St. Amour
 * Penalty minutes: 195 - Gerry St. Cyr
 * GAA: 3.32 - Darrin Madeley
 * SV%: .905 - Darrin Madeley
 * Goaltending wins: 10 - Darrin Madeley and Mark Laforest
 * Shutouts: 1 - Mark Laforest
 * Games: 80 - Scott White

title: New Haven Senators


text: Category:Stannates

title: Category:Stannates


text:
Dave Salvian

David Clifford Salvian (born September 9, 1955) is a Canadian retired professional ice hockey right winger who played in one National Hockey League playoff game for the New York Islanders during the 1976–77 NHL season, a playoff game on April 7, 1977 against the Chicago Black Hawks.

title: Dave Salvian