text:
Talk:Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun

Bofors wz.37
Should Bofors wz.37 used by Polish Army (see Opposing forces in the Polish September Campaign) redirect here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

 * You want the Bofors 37 mm a 37 mm anti-tank gun - see also here GraemeLeggett 16:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The image from the Hornet is very odd. Neither of the gunners seats are occupied. Was laying being performed remotely? If so, this might be worth mentioning. Or is this a loading/firing drill? Maury 12:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I was looking for an example of a 40mm shell, I would have liked to see a photo of the ammo used in this gun on this page.

I was browsing this page when I found that there is no mention of the use of the 40 mm bofors gun in the Combat Vehicle 90. I went ahead and changed it, what do you guys think? Mailerdaemon 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"it appears historians connected the development of the 40 mm and German 37 mm weapons without any supporting evidence. It should be pointed out these two weapons are quite different from each other and share few, if any, features." As far as I know, german enginners were not allowed to work on weapons in Germany so some moved abroad. "Legend" has it that the "88" were "invented" at Bofors by germans working there, they later took the plans with them. Can these enginners have been involved in the 40mm? 213.100.43.90 23:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * German engineers were definitely involved in work on what would become the 88 with Bofors. It seems that based on nothing more than this, historians assumed that they also knew about the 40. However the historical record is clear, at least today, that this was not the case. It seems like an example of reading one too many times between the lines. Maury 22:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

L60 or L56?
The sentence regarding the L60 beeing in fact L56.1 may of course be correct (I´m no expert in Bofors), but the referring to inches is completely out of place. For all (?) guns, the L figure refers to length in calibers. L60 for a 40mm caliber guns equals 2.4 meters, not 60 inch. L60 for a 50mm caliber gun equals 3.0 meter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 44 Echo (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true; gun lengths are traditionally measured in calibers... which is why it says "L60"... it means the gun is 60 calibers in length, which equates to 240 cm... the number following the gun's bore size is length in number of calibers, not inches... Magus732 (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And besides, the original Swedish version was 60 calibers... the American and German versions were both 56 calibers long. The Japanese version was 60 calibers, and the British version was 56.3, according to navweaps.com... Magus732 (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There were different standards for measuring barrel length in calibres. One method included only rifled barrel, another one the whole barrel length and IIRC there was also one counting into the breech to the bottom of the grenade. Afaik both L/56.1 and L/60 are correct in their respective standards. 87.78.208.254 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There where aparently several lenght of the barrel depending on where it was exported. Ive heard of everything from L/62 to L/50.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I just wanna update this section, all these years later, that the question has been answered in the current section Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted ridiculous "Globalize" tag
That this tag exists at all is an indicator, among many others, of the infantile state to which Wikipedia has sunk, where every article is to be subjected to a multicultural test. This is the English-language site. Of course the articles will be written from an "English-speaking" perspective. If another "language perspective" is desired, then it can be presented in the appropriate Wikipedia language version. If one wishes to add a section about the Bofors 40mm used in a "non-English-language perspective" -- presumably its history in a non-English country -- then by all means add it, but this is certainly not an "issue," as the inane tag claims. Anyway, after two years here, the tag has shown itself to be utterly useless. J M Rice (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 * While I do agree to a certain degree that the tag is ridiculously over-used, you miss an important aspect when you suggest that language versions should have different perspectives. English-speaking people who come here to seek information should not need to learn a multitude of languages to find perspectives from outside the English-speaking countries.

BP OMowe (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

21,000
By the end of the war total production from British, Canadian, and Australian factories was over 2,100, while U.S. lend-lease examples added about 150.
 * Are the decimal points in the right place?Keith-264 (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Photo of a submarine mount
This might make a nice addition. We have plenty of photos of unmounted guns, this one shows the Bofors mounted on a WWII US submarine. Kendall-K1 (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/2860450469/

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bofors 40 mm gun. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://casrca.nationprotect.net/id-mcdv-midlife-2.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110613233736/http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors to http://www.navy.gov.au/w/index.php/Last_blast_for_Bofors

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) 12:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Hazemeyer gun mount
Was used for the Bofors 40 mm gun and article is a stub, so there is a compelling reason for it to be merged to the article I just mentioned. Abequinn14 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is much more info available about this mount, its development, and its use, which merits its own article. Notable due to being the first auto stabilized antiaircraft naval mount. Please expand Hazemeyer gun mount article accordingly. Regards,DPdH (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fully concur with DPdH above. Arugia (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Split article into the Bofors 40 mm L/60 and Bofors 40 mm L/70?
So why does these guns share the same article? They only share the same builder (Bofors) and the same calibre (40 mm) but otherwise they are different guns. They dont fire the same cartridge and they dont share any technical parts. Its like having the AK-47, AK-74 and RPK sharing the same article. Actually they are way more alike than the Bofors 40 mm L/60 and L/70. The biggest problem with having both guns in the same article is that it tricks people into believing that there is only one base gun, which isnt true. I mean the title alone just says Bofors 40 mm gun. If anything it should be Bofors 40 mm guns or Bofors 40 mm L/60 & L/70.

Anyone having anything to add to this as i dont want to make such a drastic change without consulting the community.

--Blockhaj (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Really? No one has anything to add to this?--Blockhaj (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So the article needs a lot of rewriting to be split. Splitting is gonna take a while.--Blockhaj (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 * It usually helps to add a split tag to the article, such as Template:Split. - BilCat (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 * I couldnt find the english template. But thanks.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Strongly oppose The article is about the whole family, the L/70 being a direct evolution of the L/60, and, as is, it gives a full picture of the caliber's history and its varying uses, as it is supposed to do. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a lexicon. No reason to split. Arugia (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case i suggest u combine all of the articles based on the Kalashnikov design.--Blockhaj (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I wanted to add in my first response a quip about "and no, let's not be obtuse, it's not the same as the AK" then decided against thinking "nah, no point driving that mail with a sledgehammer'. Well, apparently, I was wrong. Or more exactly, I was right in the first place, if you will. There was a point reaching for an AK sledgehammer.
 * So, no, it's not the same as the AK. If the whole AK/AKM family could be reasonably documented under a single article, say the 7.62×39mm article, then yes, it would make sense to have a single article. All the relevant information in the same place, that would be perfect. But it turns out the subject of the AK is far too vast to accommodate such an approach. Actually, there is even a chapeau article on the whole family of the Kalashnikov_rifle pointing to, at least, an hundred different sub-entries. If all of that was packed in a single article, it would probably weigh in the millions of characters and hundreds of pages.
 * Comparatively, the 40 mm Bofors is a pretty small and narrow subject. The article is fairly short and quite readable, less than 60,000 characters and less than 20 pages, well within the grasp of a motivated reader interested in such a highly specialized subject. So, no, there's no point dividing it into a plethora of bite-sized sub-articles of limited individual relevance. Much better to have the whole information in a single synthetic entry when possible.
 * Now, if you have a great deal of content to add on the specific subject of the L/70 variant, please go ahead. And if there is so much content to add on the matter that it bloats the present article to unreadable proportions, feel free to create a new article for the L/70. But as it stands, I see no point and lot of detriment to splitting it. Arugia (talk) 21:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a ton of info for the L/70 (and the L/60) but writing such an article would take a few days which is time i dont have atm. Ive started to collect the sources i need for the split.--Blockhaj (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 * Strong support – the two weapons are from different eras have different characteristics. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
 * Support - These weapons have:
 * Two different barrel lengths
 * Two different ranges
 * Two different muzzle velocities
 * Two different cartridges
 * Two different shell sizes
 * Two different widths
 * Two different heights
 * Two different traverse angles
 * Two different fire rates
 * Two different laying mechanisms (Powered vs not)
 * Two different parts "In spite of sharing almost nothing with the original design other than the calibre and the distinctive conical flash hider"

Checks both boxes for splitting: 1) Size allows: "> 60kB / 60,000 chars	Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) >  50kB / 50,000 chars	May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" 2) "Sometimes two or more distinct topics may share the same base title or similar titles, such as "light", which may refer to electromagnetic radiation, a component that produces light, or spiritual illumination. Sometimes the distinct topics may be closely related, such as Coffea (the plant) and coffee (the product), or thermal energy and heat."
 * Two different guns in many respects. You see this on many guns, even if they fire the same shell.  Example:

16"/45 caliber Mark 6 gun 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC) would keeping a Bofors family page (of some proposed title) be acceptable while splitting off the L/60 and L/70? IS tank family - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Should be noted a Bofers 40mm family page can be retained (as happened with the IS tank family page when I split it. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 06:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * would keeping a Bofors family page (of some proposed title) be acceptable while splitting off the L/60 and L/70? IS tank family - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 18:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * Should be noted that "Bofors" should go first if it is split. WikiProject_Firearms - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest something like "Bofors 40mm L/60" and "Bofors 40mm L/70" - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 03:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats their official company names --Blockhaj (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm just saying that manufacturer name first is the current guidelines per WikiProject_Firearms.  If I'm wrong about the guidelines feel free to correct me - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split : User:Le Petit Chat/40 mm Bofors L/70 anti-air gun and User:Le Petit Chat/40 mm Bofors L/60 anti-air gun. I am neutral about the name of the page.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I assume this is a Support position? - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course. I thought the current discussion was now only about the name.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

 * "Bofors 40mm L/60" and "Bofors 40mm L/70" is my !vote. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC).

 * Ok this seems to be an overwhelming yes for a split. Preferred names seems to be Bofors 40 mm L/60 and L/70 which also are their official company names. Note that calibers are written with a space between number and mm.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , my sources are limited to only a couple of books but happy to provide any assistance if required. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC).
 * i only have some manuals for stats etc so anything history related is of interest. I have started to work on the split, it will take some days.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So my life just got turned over. Now i dont have time to do a proper split.--Blockhaj (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Update
The article has now been split into Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 and Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 * , many thanks for the excellent job splitting this. Cavalryman (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

 * Now we need to move Bofors Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 back to the CommonName of Bofors 40 mm gun. And Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70 probably should be at Bofors 40 mm gun L/70. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I would support this, the L/60 version was by far the more common and significant, the vast majority of links throughout Wikipedia would be referring to it. Cavalryman (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

 * That name is not the common name universally for the 40/60 and it is problematic as the 40/70 also goes under that name commonly. In the international historical community and weapon community the weapon is most commonly known as the "Bofors 40 mm L/60" generally. Bofors themselves traditionally names their guns after caliber and barrel length. Here is a readily available example (time stamped), but i have tons of more historical publications at hand if needed. Renaming the article back to just "Bofors 40 mm gun" will just keep aiding the problem of people using the unspecified name.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * From my experience the L/70 from a historical point of view is not that far behind the L/60 in communality and significance, and the generic name "Bofors 40 mm gun" has to some extent blown the L/60 out of proportion post WWII, as the L/70 is confused for the L/60 in a lot of historical sources.--Blockhaj (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * I have recently started to rename a lot of articles on Bofors guns to be more in line with their historical naming scheme.
 * Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60
 * Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70
 * Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60
 * Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/70
 * Bofors 105 mm Coastal Automatic Gun L/54
 * Bofors 120 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/50
 * Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46
 * --Blockhaj (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Where does the "Automatic Gun" bit of the name come from. I've not seen it used in the references I've looked at so far? GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * "Automatic Gun" can be found in this example i posted earlier, although for the L/70. Basically all prewar references from Bofors are either in German or Swedish, thus i have no direct reference were the 40/60 is named in English. Here are some snippets from a 1936 Bofors catalogue in German: . Its general German name is '40 mm automatkanone L/60' ('40 mm automatkanon L/60' in Swedish). This can either be translated to "40 mm automatic cannon L/60" or "40 mm automatic gun L/60". The latter of these is more fitting as "Automatic Gun" is the English term Bofors chose to use for autocannons postwar. Here are some other snippets from a 1958 Bofors catalogue in English: . At times Bofors names varried, as with the Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46, which can be found both with and without Anti-Aircraft (A.A.) in the name ("Bofors 120 mm Automatic Gun L/46"). Thus i choose to not include 'Anti-Aircraft' in either article name for the 40/60 and 40/70. In Swedish Bofors sources the guns are most often just known as "automatkanon" (automatic gun) instead of "luftvärnsautomatkanon" (automatic anti-aircraft gun).--Blockhaj (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So you are using a translation of the manufacturers name for it in Swedish for the English article title? That is unlikely to meet the Article Name policy at WP:COMMONNAME "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)..." GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The name "Bofors 40 mm automatic gun" is used in conjunction with "Bofors 40 mm automatic cannon" in George M. Chinn's book The Machine Gun, Volume 3. The book is published in 1951, however it lacks barrel length throughout. The book (1951) predates the introduction of the 40/70 (1952), referring to it as the M.48, the Swedish military designation. While it is nothing conclusive, it at least shows that the term "Automatic Gun" was used to some extent historically for the 40 mm L/60.--Blockhaj (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * In The Machine Gun, Volume 4, some Bofors weapon brochures are mentioned by names in the sources section on page 520 (link to free google e-book). Here you will find the names Bofors 25 mm automatic gun L/64 and Bofors 40 mm automatic naval gun L/60, further indications that the formal English names at the time used variations of "Automatic Gun".--Blockhaj (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * The title Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 is purely a WP construction. A straight google search is of little help in determining what is an appropriate name, since most hits are to mirrors and other unreliable sources. What is useful is this n-gram. Overwhelmingly, the guns are referred to as Bofors 40/60 and like. In this n-gram, I have stripped away the predominant uses to show in more detail the words that follow either "40 mm Bofors" or "Bofors 40 mm". There is no consistent term that follows (except perhaps "Bofors 40 mm L/70"). The space in the calibre (ie "40 mm" v "40mm") makes little difference per [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Bofors+40+mm+%2A%2C40+mm+Bofors+%2A%2CBofors+40mm+%2A%2C40mm+Bofors+%2A&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t2%3B%2CBofors%2040%20mm%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20L/70%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C40%20mm%20Bofors%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20and%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2CBofors%2040mm%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20antiaircraft%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20L/70%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C40mm%20Bofors%20%2A%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20and%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20antiaircraft%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20cannons%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20in%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20mountings%3B%2Cc0#t2%3B%2CBofors%2040%20mm%20*%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20L%2F70%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040%20mm%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C40%20mm%20Bofors%20*%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20and%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40%20mm%20Bofors%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2CBofors%2040mm%20*%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20antiaircraft%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20L%2F70%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBofors%2040mm%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B.t2%3B%2C40mm%20Bofors%20*%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20guns%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20gun%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20and%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20anti%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20cannon%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20AA%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20antiaircraft%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20cannons%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20in%3B%2Cc0%3B%3B40mm%20Bofors%20mountings%3B%2Cc0 this n-gram] (see this and this, which are simplified by showing the two key forms of calibre first or second).  As a note, I am not able to get information on what might follow "Bofors 40/60".  I think it is a technical difficulty associated with the slash being present that conflicts with the asterisk as a wildcard.  There may be many official designations but these largely refer to various mounting configurations rather than the gun itself and are not useful (not withstanding WP:COMMONNAME).  To the argument of "automatic gun" being the best translation, the best translation of "automatkanon" is autocannon or automatic cannon.  Clearly, the most appropriate titles (per WP:AT) are "Bofors 40/60" an "Bofors 40/70".  Whether any qualifier is further required is another matter.  There would be no naming conflict with "Bofors 40/60" and like.  Therefore, additional precision is redundant and is counter-balanced by WP:CONCISE. To the existing titles, there is no justification to capitalise any part except "Bofors". Cinderella157 (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * , given your recent comment at the RM below perhaps you are not familiar with WP:COMMONNAME as it applies to determining article titles. In the discussions here and below, this is how "common name" is being used.  Perhaps you have not understood the nature of the n-gram links I have provided above.  They represent searches through text from the extremely large body of publications that have been scanned into Google books. See n-gram and Google Ngram Viewer. Consequently, they are a useful tool to determine the relative frequency of any particular name and consequently, that which best satisfies WP:COMMONNAME wrt what an article title should be. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * i understand WP:COMMONNAME and n-grams but i find it very flawed in this case as available literature overrepresents WWII. WWII literature is one of the most problematic history areas due to "victors writing the history" and thus naming of guns in such literature often misrepresents historical and real life nomenclature, especially reflecting post WWII. And to my knowledge Google Ngram Wiewer is known to be flawed in its recognition of some words or numbers etc. In any case the best solution to all of this IMO is to use one of the full lenght formal names for the gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The name is not a WP construction. As explained above it is one of the formal historical names for it and its named as such as part of a Bofors-standardization project.
 * Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60
 * Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/70
 * Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/60
 * Bofors 57 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/70
 * Bofors 105 mm Coastal Automatic Gun L/54
 * Bofors 120 mm Naval Automatic Gun L/50
 * Bofors 120 mm Automatic Anti-Aircraft Gun L/46
 * --Blockhaj (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * It is certainly not one used in a substantial number (or majority) of independent reliable sources. From what I can see, it appears in one sales catalogue? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * " Bofors-standardization project." - whose project would that be? Article names are governed by policy as set out at WP:Article titles. Eg "Boys anti-tank rifle" and not "Rifle, Anti-Tank, .55in, Boys" (British Army name).
 * IMHO Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun is sufficiently concise and precise and also gives a reader enough information. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The standardization project is a personal project of mine. Previously i thought no one would care and thus i never started anything formal. The reasoning for it is because Bofors has made so many different guns in the same caliber and barrel lengths and thus for the future i think it is important that we specify (like they do) what type of gun it is. Futurue examples: Bofors 120 mm Naval Gun L/46, Bofors 120 mm Automatic Gun L/46., , is it of interest to start a formal Bofors-naming standardization project? Current simplified names are not only problematic for future article names but its also problematic for the reasons that we have this discussion. Simplified names causes people to merge several guns into one. Another example is Oerlikon 20 mm cannon.--Blockhaj (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * , WP:AT is the policy governing the naming of articles. While consistency is a consideration, it must be balanced against other considerations. These titles are being presented in a way that represents them as if they are the acknowledged designations. That is just plain wrong (see WP:CITOGENESIS). "Bofors 40/60" is the common name as evidenced above.  I can live with "Bofors 40/60 gun" even though it is a degree of unnecessary precision and less natural, in that one would need to use a piped link if one wished to use some other descriptor in running text like "Bofors 40/60 anti-aircraft gun".  There is no conflict with other titles that would require further disambiguation.  The same can be said for the other guns listed at Bofors.  If there is a potential conflict (for a future article), we would deal with it then - we don't crystal ball these things.  People may not notice these things straight away but on a matter such as this, they will care because there are WP policies at play. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * It's not a question of formally creating a project, it's a question of following wikipolicy on naming. Going off and doing one's own thing works for personal websites. In a formalised structure like en:wiki, you can end up a poor reputation for cooperation, everything put back where it was to start with, and exasperated fellow editors. Which is why there are ways of discussing changes before they are carried out. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the reason behind current naming policy but i do think its flawed. I have already explained several reasons above. I prefer the usage of formal article names if they can be implemented without causing problems. Current name is both formal and explanatory, and imo not problematic. However i'm only one man. If everyone is against my proposed names then go ahead and change them.--Blockhaj (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what you think of the policy, it's policy until changed. So I'll initiate a requested move.

Requested move 2 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is clear consensus to move away from the existing title and support for "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun". A new RM can be made for "Bofors 40/60" or other titles. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bofors 40 mm Automatic Gun L/60 → Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun – The current name is not used in sources, and fails Article Name policy on capitalisation as well. Before splitting the content was under Bofors 40 mm gun. The proposed name covers a common name the weapon is known by with the "L/60" part disambiguating from a later weapon also made by Bofors GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Oppose The English name does appear in some sources but due to period language most formal sources name it in German or Swedish (40 mm automatkanone L/60, 40 mm automatkanon L/60). Post war autocannons by Bofors were traditionally called Automatic Guns in English.--Blockhaj (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Against current name The present name is contrary to WP:AT at several points. The statement by, most formal sources name it lacks verification but also, are not English language sources. The evidence presented above is that the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly "Bofors 40/60".  The "L" designation only appears to be used to any extent in reference to the 40/70 gun and then, it is far less common than the "40/70" designation.  The additional descriptor, "gun" is unnecessary IMO.  There is nothing of the form "Bofors 40 xxxxx" that isn't a gun. It provides no additional service in searches. Furthermore, "Bofors 40/60" is more amenable to linking without piping when a different descriptor (such as "anti-aircraft gun") is desired in text. IMO, "Bofors 40/60" ticks all of the boxes per WP:AT. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * If moved, then Bofors 40/60 is preferred over "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun", as that name at the very least can be found in some formal documentation. Bofors 40/60 however is problematic in my book as it only speaks to people who know the suject matter beforehand. The general person will not understand what "Bofors 40/60" refers to.--Blockhaj (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Readers come looking for information by two main routs. They will come from a link from another article. In that case, the title chosen makes no difference to them finding the target. But it is still important as to what the name is being represented as.  If they are making a search, then they are most likely searching by the most common name, whether or not they fully understand what it is they are searching for.  Hence, that is why I would propose that "Bofors 40/60" is the best name.  The lead will tell them that it is a gun, if they didn't already know that.  "Bofors 40 mm gun" is the other possible search route (noting that "gun" is also redundant in this case) since it has been very common to refer to it as such (at least prior to the L/70). However, "Bofors 40 mm L/60" is very uncommon as a name per n-gram evidence.  Readers coming via that search route are unlikely to know which variant they really want. The purpose of the Bofors 40 mm gun article is to give them sufficient information about which particular model they are after and, if they want more information, to go to the correct main article. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Tentative support as preferable to the current name, but would much prefer Bofors 40 mm gun and a hatnote for the L/70. I do not believe "Bofors 40/60" would be an improvement. Cavalryman (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC).
 * Support Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun. Bofors 40/60 may be commonly used, but it doesn't do a good enough job of telling the reader what the subject of the article is, which is sort of the entire purpose of a title in the first place. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * that argument goes for the current name as well, and its actually a formal name.--Blockhaj (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Per WP:AT: The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles. However, perhaps the most important function of the title is so that a reader can find the article that they want. That is why WP:RECOGNIZE and WP:COMMONNAME are given a degree of prominence in determining the title.  Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.  "Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun" rarely occurs in sources - per the evidence, it wasn't found (sufficiently to report). [WP] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above.  This is because readers are most likely to search on the name they most commonly see elsewhere. "Bofors 40/60 [gun]" is not just "more common", it is substantially more common. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.  Bofors 40 mm fails because of the ambiguity that now exists. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The gun is known under a great variety of different takes on the 40 mm automatic gun L/60 name, sometimes just being referred to as the Bofors L/60. If we include several of the most common abbreviations of the name in the article lead then it will be super easy for people of all types to find the article.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I really want to give a bunch of examples but i actually have very few english examples at hand. However something i have noticed while going through my library is that the L/60 suffix becomes more common post WWII around the time the L/70 enters the scene. A lot of publications simply call it the Bofors 40 mm anti air gun (40 mm luftvärnspjäs) when describing WWII period history. The suffix L/60 however is not totally abscent and usually does appear once or twice in proper publications to specify what the text refers to. This however could definitely explain why a lot of english WWII period sources lack the suffix L/60. As the 40/43 never saw export to the UK or USA, the name "Bofors 40 mm gun" or "Bofors gun" during the war could only refer to the 40/60. This is the same reason why the Bofors 37 mm anti-tank gun rarely feature the suffix L/45. Bofors did produce a number of other 37 mm guns during the interwar period (37 mm Naval Gun L/37 for example) but these never saw export to English speaking countries to my knowledge. But even then, the name 'Bofors 40 mm "gun type" L/60' was well established internationally prior to the war.--Blockhaj (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * Support If there is no such thing as a Bofors 40mm gun (of any length) that is NOT automatic, it seems utterly pointless to include "automatic" in the description. Redirects would seems sufficient to cover the (extremely) unlikely search for an automatic version of any variant.  DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 06:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

 * "Automatic Gun" is not simply a description but actually a common designation for the gun historically, thus the initial letters are capital. A similar case would be the "Thompson Submachine Gun". If not Automatic Gun then "Anti-Air Gun" also exist as an option, although the gun was not always intended for anti-air.--Blockhaj (talk) 07:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You picked a poor example to make your case: its Thompson submachine gun. No submachine gun articles seem to use "submachine gun" capitalised and some don't use "submachine gun" in the name, eg Sten even though 'officially' they might have had capitals.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasnt referencing the Wikipedia article..--Blockhaj (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that the capitalisation isn't there because of the article name policies, which also apply to this article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I am not sure why Bofors L/60 40 mm gun is not proposed, on the basis of manufacturer - type - description, but the present proposal is better than what we have now. I note there is only one editor against the proposal. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Calibre length section
There are some issues with the present description in the article.

Dimensions and definitions
Bore length: 2250 mm (56.25 calibres)

L/60 = 2400 mm

Unaccounted length (L/60 - L/56.25) = 150 mm

Length of rifling: 1927 - 1933 mm

Difference A (2250 - 1930): 320 mm

Difference B (2400 - 1930 [length of rifling]) = 470 mm

Cartridge LOA (inc projectile): 446.5 - 448.3 mm

Length of cartridge case = 311 mm

There are three main components to consider: the barrel; the breech ring which holds the breechblock and to which the barrel is fitted using an interrupted screw; and, the breech casing, in which the breech ring reciprocates. The barrel fits about halfway into the breech ring. The breechblock closes against the rear of the barrel. The barrel breech ring appears to be about 200 - 300 mm long. See also Longitudinal Section of Gun

Effective barrel length: usually taken to be the length of rifling but clearly not here.

The barrel consist of the chamber, the bore and the muzzle. The chamber includes at least the neck of the cartridge but usually includes the lead. The muzzle includes the crown and flash suppressor. If the bore is considered to be other than the rifled section of a barrel, it is that which is at the nominal diameter of the calibre. (see Gun barrel).

Discussion

 * The L/60 designation is not based on the length of rifling nor is it based on the bore length. "Difference A" (320 mm) indicates it includes the length of the empty cartridge case (311 mm).  150 mm is still unaccounted for.

 * In the discussion at WT:MILHIST, it was stated that The reason its called an L/60 is because Bofors at the time (and at times today because logic) also counted the breach to the overall barrel length, making it an L/60 ... L/60 is the overall length from muzzle to the end of the weapon box according to the Swedish army where, clarifying the meaning of "weapon box": The The correct term would either be reciever, breech casing or mantle depending on which nomenclature u wanna use. Bofors said mantle. Accoridng to this film the US said breech casing. [sic]

 * The length within the breech casing is at least the length an unfired cartridge plus some. This is clearly not where the measurement is taken from.  It is at least 450 mm, which is three times the unaccounted length.

 * The L/60 refers to the length of the barrel with the breech mounted, the breech excess length being 150 mm long.

 * The link "breech" is actually a piped link to breechloader. The automatic loading assembly fits within and atop the breech casing. It is saying the same as above and is wrong for the same reasons.  The reference is not viewable so I cannot verify it.  It may also be a mistranslation.

 * I would contrast this with the proposed alternative explanation at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 4: The "L" designation represents the barrel length as multiples of the bore diameter. The "nominal length" of the L/60 barrel is 2400 mm. The actual length of the L/60 barrel is 56.25 calibres (2250 mm). Consequently, in US service, the gun was designated as L/56. There is no actual difference in barrel length.

 * At times a barrel length of "L/62" is used – 2,500 mm. This refers to the length of the barrel without breech but with the conical flash hider mounted; the excess length of the flash hider being 250 mm.

 * At times a barrel length of "L/62" is used I have reservations about "at times". It cites one none English source titled in English as "Principles for names and abbreviated designations of the navy's artillery and firearms as well as motives for changes in model years, etc." This could easily be a one-off passing reference.

 * The flash suppressor screws onto the end of the barrel. Some of the length of the suppressor will not add to the length of the barrel.  The inner section of the suppressor closest to the breech is a similar diameter to the bore of barrel but slightly oversize.  It is about 1/4 to 1/3 of the LOA of the suppressor.  However, stating that the suppressor is 250 mm long but only adds 2 calibres to the length (ie 80 mm) is plain confusing.

L/43 paragraph
The barrel length given (1720 mm) divided by 40 mm = 43. There is no discrepancy at face value. The length of rifling given is 1385 mm. The difference is 335 mm. Given that the cartridge case is 311 mm, the difference is, for all practical reasons, the same as the length of the chamber - ie there is no discrepancy. This then begs the question as to whether the cited figure of 1720 mm is a value calculated from the number of calibres or if it is a cited length. It is represented as being the latter.

I have already commented on the Royal Swedish Naval Materiel Administration source cited in this para twice.

The final figure of 1760 mm cites this source. The table simply cites the "barrel length". It does not state or imply: With a flash hider or muzzle brake the barrel length becomes ... 1,760 mm (5 ft 9 in). But the table also gives the barrel length of the double model 1936 as 2500 mm.

A flash suppressor and a muzzle brake are quite two different things. I have not previously heard of the Bofors having a muzzle brake. It certainly does not appear to be a muzzle brake.

Conclusions

 * Barrel length expressed in calibres is not an "exact" measure and is usually rounded to whole numbers.

 * The Bofors guns do not use the more usual measure of "rifled" length as a basis for the calibre as a barrel length but includes the "chamber".

 * The present "Calibre length" section does not provide a cogent explanation for the 150 mm "discrepancy".

 * The L/60 measure probably includes the breach ring in determining the length. This "could" be assessed from a dimensioned drawing. However, there is quite clearly no source evident that cogently explains the discrepency. Such speculation (beyond this discussion) would be inappropriate.

 * The current section is "questionable" and inadequate. It is a disservice to readers. I am reminded of the saying: It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.

 * The wording at User:Cinderella157/sandbox 4 says just enough to acknowledge the difference without trying to explain what we can't (IMHO).

Discussion
The present section should be struck and replaced with something similar to my proposal. However, I don't even think it should exist as a section but should be more "generally" incorporated - somewhere. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Answer
As the writer of the section and the above quotes i should explain that the wording used in a lot of period sources are hard to understand and thus i made an incorrect assumption that the L/60 length includes the weapon box (the receiver). A lot of sources says that the length of the "gun" is 2,400 mm. This doesnt refer to the entire autocannon but just the initial QF-gun.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The flashhider is stated as 250 mm long and adds 6.25 calibers onto the L/56.25 barrel, breech not included. The source used simply says L/62 and not L/62.5, thus i used that number.--Blockhaj (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * The different designations can be summed up as "The gun was known as the L/56 by X, the L/60 by Y, and the L/whatever by Z due to different methodologies in describing the length of the barrel.". We can then if necessary give the lengths of the barrel, flash hider etc but (per WP:Not) we don't need to set out the particulars of the designations in actual numbers of metres or feet and inches. Anything more than a couple of sentences spent on the designations is a waste of effort for readers.  GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm starting to give up on the English wikipedia community again.. What is WP:Not? Who gets to decide what is a waste of effort for readers?--Blockhaj (talk) 12:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 * , the Royal Swedish Naval Materiel Administration source can't be viewed. I would be interested in verifying what it actually has to say. Do you have it in pdf format that could be sent.  Alternatively, could you possibly scan the pages cited? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 * I have it in PDF form but i have access to it through a club. I could potentially send u a copy in private if u promise to not spread it further, alternatively that i screenshot the relevant pages and upload em to imgur.--Blockhaj (talk) 04:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The pdf would be preferable. I would undertake not to transmit the work further.  Screenshots can be problematic as to resolution and are not as flexible as an OCR based pdf. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What is ur email?--Blockhaj (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you send me an email through WP, I will get back to you that way.

Distinction between Length and Barrel Length
Article claims that the "length" of the gun is ~21 ft whereas the "barrel length" is ~7-8 ft. The latter number looks correct, give or take (based on 56 or 60 caliber), but intuitively/visually the first number looks way to large. Is the entire gun literally almost 3 times the length of the barrel? What accounts for the difference? 104.49.170.213 (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

 * This is probably the length on a gun carriage (one of many mounts) but without specifying, it isn't very useful. Suspect mass, height and width are also for the carriage configuration. Suggest all three be removed as the picture in the infobox doesn't match that mounting. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying. What you say makes sense. And I would agree that talking about "gun length" in this way isn't very logical given the huge variety of mountings/modes of deployment for this equipment.  Would second your suggestion to delete these pieces of info. 104.49.170.213 (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Bofors 40 mm L/60 gun


text:
Andrew Seow

Andrew Seow (born 1969 or 1970) is a Singaporean former actor and model.

Early life
Seow studied at St. Patrick's School and Catholic High School. He earned an Advanced Diploma in fashion design, jewellery design and merchandising from Lasalle-SIA College of the Arts.

Career
Seow was a model in Singapore and in other parts of Asia before becoming an actor on local television. He is best known for his role as the fiery tempered eldest son Gary Tay in the long-running drama series Growing Up on MediaCorp TV Channel 5, a role which earned him the Best Newcomer in the annual Asian Television Awards in 1996. Seow has also starred in numerous Chinese-language dramas on Channel 8, garnering nominations in the annual Star Awards.

Seow was talent-spotted by a Television Corporation of Singapore (TCS) producer in 1996 and subsequently joined TCS. In the mid-90s, Seow, Jason Oh, Thomas Ong, Raymond Yong and Henry Tee formed the boy group The Dragons Five, which was named after the Channel 8 series of the same title.

Since 2010, Seow has been a Senior Curator with Tsu Ho Gallery which specializes in fine art, antiques and jewellery.

Theatre

 * Close: In Your Face by The Necessary Stage (2002)

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

title: Andrew Seow


text:
Queen Mary's Grammar School

Queen Mary's Grammar School (QMGS) is a boys' grammar school with academy status located on Sutton Road, Walsall, England, about a mile from the town centre and one of the oldest schools in the country.

The sixth form is coeducational.

Admissions
Admittance to the school is by entrance exam taken at the age of 10/11. Since September 2020, 180 pupils enter the school in September each year, increased gradually from 96 in September 2012. The school has grown from 718 in 2011 to 1,305 in 2022, as a consequence of this sustained expansion.

There is separate admission into the Sixth Form based on academic performance at GCSE. As of 2019, there are over 400 students on roll in the Sixth Form. At this stage of the school, girls are also admitted.

Foundation
It was founded in 1554 by George and Nicolas Hawe, two leading townsmen, with Queen Mary I as its royal patron and benefactor. At the time it had about sixty pupils, all boys, and taught Classics almost exclusively.

New sites
The school has grown significantly since its foundation and moved three times. Originally housed in an old town guild-hall near St Matthew’s Church, it moved to Park Street in 1811, into new buildings in Lichfield Street in 1850 (a site now used by Queen Mary's High School) and finally to a purpose-built school on the Mayfield site in 1965.

Academic performance
Queen Mary's performs very well in exams across the board, with consistent success in the sixth form. In 2007, the school became a specialist Language College. The extra funds from this have, amongst other things, facilitated the building of a new wing of the school buildings. The school recently completed work on a new sports hall to support the current gym and swimming facilities. The Science Block was also updated, with new Biology labs being built. A new sixth form block has been constructed and it opened late September 2012. The School is rated as 'Outstanding' by Ofsted.

Traditions
The school's badge is based on the Heraldic badge of Queen Mary and reflects her parentage, being formed from half a Tudor rose (a symbol of Henry VIII) impaled with a sheaf of arrows (a symbol of Catherine of Aragon). The badge was modified slightly during the 2006/2007 school year. A fully red rose was changed to an accurate red and white Tudor rose, which is usually shown with a red outer rose and a white inner one. However the school's Tudor rose, based on early school records, has a white outer rose and a red inner one, which the College of Arms accepts as equally valid. Despite the update, there are still some subtle differences between the current badge and Queen Mary's.

Activities
Extracurricular activities are available for pupils, including plays and drama, sports teams, quiz teams, many subject-related societies, and a Combined Cadet Force contingent, comprising both Army and RAF sections. The school has a close relationship with its sister school, Queen Mary's High School. Pupils regularly collaborate in plays held at the boys' school, and yearly musical concerts at Walsall Town Hall.

QMGS also hosted the national finals of Junior Schools' Challenge quiz on 24 June 2007, with a team from the school winning the Plate Final. In 2008, the school hosted and reached the national final, losing in the final.

The school is the only school in the country to have won the UKMT Junior Maths Team Competition twice, doing so in successive years.

The school has a plaque in St George's Church, Ypres, to honour the ex-pupils of the school who died in the Ypres Salient and the Somme during World War One. The plaque was paid for by the QM Club and was formally unveiled during a Year 9 Battlefields trip.

Every year, Year 7 students and the senior prefects visit Westminster Abbey, London to commemorate their founder on the Friday closest to 6 July. On this day, the youngest Year 7 pupil jointly lays a wreath with the Captain of School senior prefect.

Project Horizon
Project Horizon is the school's near space programme, founded in 2012, which runs annual missions. A small payload carrying cameras and tracking hardware is lifted by a high-altitude balloon filled with helium gas into the stratosphere until the balloon bursts, allowing the payload to descend back to the ground. Film footage and still images of the payload's journey are recorded throughout the entire flight, capturing views of Earth from the stratosphere.

The project has received national media attention, including appearances on the BBC and ITV.

Notable former pupils

 * David J. Brown (cricketer)
 * Colin Charvis, Rugby Union player - British and Irish Lions and Captain of Wales
 * Vernon Coleman, Conspiracy theorist, author and AIDS denialist
 * Anthony Culverwell, DJ and turntablist
 * David Ennals, Baron Ennals, Labour MP from 1974-83 for Norwich North, and from 1964-70 for Dover
 * Prof. Martin Ennals, Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights in 1991 at the University of Saskatchewan, Secretary-General from 1968-80 of Amnesty International
 * David Etherington QC, Chancellor of the Diocese of London
 * Michael Fitzgerald, Roman Catholic Cardinal archbishop and expert on Christian–Muslim relations
 * Martin Fowler, software developer and author
 * Prof. F. J. C. Hearnshaw, Professor of Mediaeval History from 1912–34 at King's College London
 * Sir Gary Hickinbottom, High Court judge
 * Prof Sir Harry Hinsley, historian and cryptanalyst
 * Jeffrey Holland, actor
 * David Howarth, academic and Liberal Democrat MP from 2005-10 for Cambridge
 * Rupert Moon, Rugby Union international for Wales
 * Sir Henry Newbolt, poet, novelist and historian
 * Sir Harmar Nicholls, 1st Baronet, Conservative MP from 1950-74 for Peterborough
 * Andrew Peach, radio presenter
 * Terry Pitt, political researcher and adviser, Labour MEP from 1984-6 for Midlands West
 * Sir Edwin Thomas Smith, Australian brewer, businessman, councillor, mayor, politician and philanthropist
 * John Somers, 1st Baron Somers, Lord Chancellor of England, 1697–1700, member of the committee which drafted the Bill of Rights
 * Bryan Stanley, trade union leader
 * Maurice Wiggin (1912–1986), journalist and memoirist
 * Frank Windsor, actor

title: Queen Mary's Grammar School


text:
Venice Commission

The Venice Commission, officially European Commission for Democracy through Law, is an advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent experts in the field of constitutional law. It was created in 1990 after the fall of the Berlin Wall, at a time of urgent need for constitutional assistance in Central and Eastern Europe.

Creation
The idea to create a Commission for Democracy through Law as a group of experts in constitutional law was conceived by the then Minister for Community Policies of Italy, Antonio Mario La Pergola. The election of the name was based on the theory of La Pergola that expressed that sustainable democracies could only be built in a constitutional framework based on the rule of law.

The formal proposal for the creation of the commission was made by the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gianni De Michelis, who invited the other Foreign Affairs ministers of the Council of Europe to the Conference for the Creation of the European Commission for Democracy through Law that was held at the Giorgio Cini Foundation in San Giorgio Maggiore, Venice from 31 March to 1 April 1989. At this meeting, Foreign Affairs and Justice ministers reunited with representatives of the Constitutional Courts of the 21 countries of the Council of Europe.

The committee of ministers, seeking to assist the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, approved the creation of the Commission as a partial agreement at the session in Venice from 19 to 20 January 1990. The Foreign Affairs and Justice Ministers of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, Romania, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia also participated as observers in this meeting.

On 10 May 1990 ministers from 18 countries (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey) of the Council of Europe adopted the statute of the Commission.

Member states

Starting with 18 member states, soon all member states of the Council of Europe joined the Venice Commission and since 2002 non-European states can also become full members. As of 2023, the Commission counts 61 member states – the 46 member states of the Council of Europe and 15 other countries. There are four observers. The Palestinian National Authority and South Africa have a special co-operation status. The EU, OSCE/ODIHR, and OAS (Organization of American States) participate in the plenary sessions of the Commission.

Members
The members are "senior academics, particularly in the fields of constitutional or international law, supreme or constitutional court judges or members of national parliaments". Acting on the Commission in their individual capacity, the members are appointed for four years by the participating countries. The current and former members include, amongst other notable academics and judges:
 * Ugo Mifsud Bonnici (Professor of Law and former President of Malta),
 * Talija Chabrieva, Russian jurist, author of the 2020 amendments to the Constitution of Russia
 * Jean-Claude Colliard (Chancellor of University Paris 1 - Panthéon-Sorbonne, former member of the Constitutional Council),
 * Christoph Grabenwarter (Judge at the Constitutional Court of Austria),
 * Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem (Former Judge, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany),
 * Jan Erik Helgesen (Professor at University of Oslo),
 * Hanna Suchocka (Former Prime Minister of Poland, Professor at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and Chair of the Constitutional Law Department)
 * Gret Haller (Senior Lecturer at Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Germany, former President of the Swiss Parliament),
 * Klemen Jaklič (Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School, Harvard University),
 * Cármen Lúcia Antunes Rocha (Professor at Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Judge of Supreme Federal Court of Brazil),
 * Jeffrey Jowell (Professor of Law and former Dean of University College London),
 * Philip Dimitrov (Former Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Member of the Constitutional Court of Bulgaria),
 * Kaarlo Tuori (Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Helsinki),
 * Pieter van Dijk (State Councillor, Chair of the Constitutional Law Committee, and former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights),
 * Jan Velaers (Professor at University of Antwerp)
 * Juan José Romero Guzmán (Former President, Constitutional Court of Chile, Professor at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile)

Leadership
Antonio Mario La Pergola was the first President of the Venice Commission. Jan Erik Helgesen, a professor at the University of Oslo, was president of the Commission for several years, through to 2009, later becoming 1st Vice-President. From December 2009 to December 2021, Gianni Buquicchio held the presidency. Claire Bazy-Malaurie has been president since December 2021.

Simona Granata-Menghini is the current Director, Secretary of the Commission. The Secretary heads the Commission's secretariat at the Council of Europe's headquarters in Strasbourg.

The Commission’s prime function is to provide constitutional assistance to member states. This assistance mainly comes in the form of Opinions. These Opinions relate to draft constitutions or constitutional amendments, or to other draft or legislation in force. The Venice Commission Opinions on specific countries cover a wide range of topics: the system of checks and balances, and the relations amongst different branches of power, the territorial organisation of the States, principles of the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms, organisation of the bodies of the constitutional justice, the governance of the judiciary and of the prosecution service, status and powers of ombudspersons, reforms of the electoral system, regulations on the political parties and referendums, etc. At the request of a constitutional court or the European Court of Human Rights, the Commission may also provide amicus curiae briefs on comparative constitutional and international law issues related to a case under consideration.

Requests for opinions come from the participating states and the statutory organs of the Council of Europe or international organisations or bodies participating in the Venice Commission's work. The opinions adopted by the Commission are not binding but are mostly followed by member states.

The areas of the Commission's activities are as follows:

Democratic institutions and fundamental rights
The aim of the assistance given by the Venice Commission is to provide a complete, precise, and objective analysis of the compatibility of laws and constitutional provisions with European and international standards, but also of the practicality and viability of the solutions envisaged by the states concerned.

Working method
The working method adopted by the Commission when providing opinions is to appoint a working group of rapporteurs (primarily from amongst its members) which advises national authorities in the preparation of the relevant law. After discussions with the national authorities and stakeholders in the country, the working group prepares a draft opinion on whether the legislative text meets the democratic standards in its field and on how to improve it on the basis of common experience. The draft opinion is discussed and adopted by the Venice Commission during a plenary session, usually in the presence of representatives from that country. After adoption, the opinion becomes public and is forwarded to the requesting body.

Non-directive approach
Although its opinions are generally reflected in the adopted legislation, the Venice Commission does not impose its solutions, but adopts a non-directive approach based on dialogue. For this reason the working group, as a rule, visits the country concerned and meets with the different political actors involved in the issue in order to ensure the most objective view of the situation.

Conflict resolution by providing legal advice
A political agreement settling a conflict should be supported by a viable legal text. It may also be possible for an agreement on a legal text to foster a political solution. For this reason the Venice Commission pays particular attention to countries which are going through or have gone through ethno-political conflicts. In this context, at the European Union's request, the Venice Commission has played an important role in developing and interpreting the constitutional law of Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro as well as that of Kosovo. It has also been involved in efforts to settle the conflicts on the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia and Transnistria in Moldova.

The Commission drafts opinions, initiates studies and organises conferences inter alia on:
 * Constitutional reform
 * Emergency powers
 * Federalism and regionalism
 * International law issues
 * Internal security services and armed forces
 * Protection of fundamental rights including the freedom of religion, the freedom of assembly and association
 * Protection of minorities and prohibition of discrimination
 * Functioning of parliaments and judiciary

Elections, referendums and political parties
The work of the Commission in the field of elections, referendums and political parties is steered by the Council for Democratic Elections (CDE). The CDE is a unique tripartite body made up of representatives of the Venice Commission, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. The aim of the Council for Democratic Elections is to ensure co-operation in the electoral field between the Venice Commission as a legal body and the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of the Council of Europe as political bodies, in order to promote the European common values in the field of elections – the principles of the European electoral heritage.

The Commission identifies and develops standards in the area of elections through:

 * Codes of good practice on elections, on referendums and on political parties
 * Opinions - mostly joint ones with OSCE/ODIHR - on electoral legislation
 * Legal advice to the PACE election observation missions
 * "Vota" database of electoral legislation

Constitutional and ordinary justice
Another branch of the Commission's activities includes co-operation with the constitutional courts and equivalent bodies. Since its creation, the Venice Commission has been aware that it is not sufficient to assist the states in the adoption of democratic constitutions but that these texts have to be implemented in reality. Key players in this field are constitutional courts and equivalent bodies exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

Cooperation with Constitutional Courts, ordinary courts and ombudspersons is done by means of:

 * Opinions on and for Constitutional Courts, ordinary courts and for Ombudspersons (including amicus curiae briefs)
 * Key constitutional case-law – E-bulletin and CODICES database
 * Regional co-operation with courts' associations
 * World Conference on Constitutional Justice
 * Seminars and conferences with Constitutional Courts
 * Venice Forum – advice and exchange between Constitutional courts
 * Joint Council on Constitutional Justice (representatives of Courts and members of the Commission)

Transnational studies, reports and seminars
While most of the work of the Commission is country specific, the Commission also prepares, through its own initiative and at request of statutory bodies such as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, studies and reports addressing topics of general interest in the member and observer states. Transnational topics are also covered in the Unidem seminars (University for Democracy) and published in the Science and Technique of Democracy collection.

Comparative studies and reports
Comparative studies on topics to do with the functioning of democracy offer initial overviews of the law in various countries. Such a comparative approach then makes it possible to identify constitutional values that are shared throughout Europe and, where relevant, any areas of weakness. The third stage is that of harmonisation, in which, on the basis of Commission recommendations, the principles concerned are incorporated into the law of those countries where they have not yet been established.

EU integration
In June 2022, the European Union asked the candidate countries of Ukraine and Moldova, and the applicant country of Georgia to implement various reforms suggested by the Venice Commission in order to proceed with EU integration.

Blasphemy
In 2009, the Venice Commission attracted rare news coverage for its opinion that "blasphemy should not be illegal".

Elections: boundary delimitation
As part of its report, European Commission for Democracy Through Law: Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, Guidelines and Explanatory Reports adopted October 2002, the Venice Commission recommended a number of considerations, also when dealing with issues of boundary delimitation.

Background and the roots of democratic backsliding
The 2015 Polish parliamentary elections saw the victory of the Law and Justice Party (PiS) with an outright majority against the incumbent Civic Platform party. Before the elections were held, the ruling Civic Platform party changed the Act on the Constitutional Tribunal that prevented judges from being elected before their term was over. The Civic Platform party before could only appoint three constitutional judges, as there were vacancies at the time, however, under the new rule, the governing party appointed five judges to the Polish Constitutional Tribunal as there were two vacancies that were to open right after the parliamentary elections. As a result, these are the origins of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal crisis that started in 2015.

The new Polish President, Andrzej Duda, refused for the judges to be sworn in and at the same time, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, decided that three of the five judges were properly elected and should be sworn in out of the five appointed judges. Nonetheless, none of the judges were sworn in by the President and the governing PiS appointed five judges, passing a series of legislation related to the Tribunal that was characterized by the European Union in its first Rule of Law Recommendation as posing a serious threat to the rule of law in Poland. This legislation included around 6 specific laws, ranging from a chronology requirement, where the Tribunal had to decide cases in order that they came in which effectively allowed the newer government greater leverage with the most recent laws it has passed, to a 6-month requirement for the Court to review laws.

Venice Commission's First Opinion
On 23 December 2015, the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Witold Waszczykowski, requested an opinion from the Venice Commission on the proposed changes to the Polish Constitutional Tribunal. However, in absence of vacatio legis, the legislation entered into force which: a) prevented the Commission's recommendations to be incorporated and improve the law before it had legal effect, and b) imposed a special mechanism of control on the Constitutional Tribunal which was effectively disabled from exercising its powers because the legislation changes had already been implemented. To illustrate the latter point, since the Court had at the time only 12 sitting judges, it could not review the constitutionality of current laws, as the new legislation required quorum of 13 judges. Before examining further the principles of the new Polish legislation, and in line with the aforementioned mechanism that effectively suspends the efficiency of the Tribunal, the Commission stated its 2006 Opinion related to the Romanian Constitutional Court and upheld that "it must be ensured that the Constitutional Court as the guarantor of the Constitution remains functioning as a democratic institution". Additionally, in an opinion related to the Constitutional Court of Albania that posed the question of whether the judges sitting at the Court could be involved in assessing the constitutionality of laws that affected them, the Commission again upheld that "the authorization of the Court derives from the necessity to make sure that no law is exempt from constitutional review, including laws that relate to the position of judges..." .

The Commission commented specifically on the quorum through a comparative lens. It mentioned that in other European Countries, such as Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Georgia, Hungary, Lithuania, the Republic of Moldova, Romania and the Russian Federation, there seems to be a consensus about having two-thirds as the quorum that would allow the Constitutional Court to decide; the German Federal Constitutional Court, on the other hand, has a three-fourths requirement in both of its eight-member chambers. However, the new requirement introduced by the Polish legislator with 13 judges out of 15 judges to have quorum goes beyond the established standards according to the Commission. While European legislators agree for the need of quorum that goes above an absolute majority, the Commission warns that the proposed changes could lead to inefficiency and make the Tribunal "dysfunctional". In addition, the Commission reviews the "sequence rule", the majority for adopting decisions (2/3), and the delay on hearings, as procedural aspects, along with the disciplinary proceedings and the Tribunal's composition -- all parts of the new legislation. The Opinion 833/2015 concludes by highlighting that for the achievement of checks and balances in a constitutional democracy, an independent Constitutional Court is needed, and so long there is a lack thereof, "not only is rule of law in danger, but so is democracy and human rights".

The National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) reforms
According to Article 186 from the Polish Constitution, the National Council of the Judiciary (NCJ) is a constitutional organ that "shall safeguard the independence of courts and judges". Its main responsibilities lie in appointing judges, reviewing the professional ethic standards regarding the judiciary, a general overview of any judiciary matters and overall -- the protection of the Polish judiciary's independence, thus ensuring that rule of law is upheld within this branch of government.

On 20 January 2017, the Polish government announced a comprehensive reform of the judiciary in Poland, which included the NCJ. This process of legislative changes was aided by the actions of the new composition of the Polish Constitutional Tribunal, which in its decision K5/17 declared the NCJ's Statute "unconstitutional", which paved the way for the new legislation. Among the most controversial changes were the rules on the composition of this body, whereby the adoption of this legislation forced the premature ending of the term of the contemporary members and further politicized the process of the election of the new ones. To summarize, in a period of only two years after PiS election there have been 13 laws that transformed the judiciary branch and the structure of Polish justice system, from the Constitutional Tribunal, the NCJ, to the lower courts across the country. As a result, the European Commission has established that the constitutionality of national legislation "can no longer be guaranteed" and the independence of the judicial branch has been undermined.

Venice Commission's Opinion on NCJ reforms
The President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has requested the Venice Commission to issue an opinion on the compatibility of the NCJ reforms in line with Council of Europe's rule of law standards. By looking at the new method of election of NCJ members, the early termination of the mandate of the current members, the creation of new chambers, early retirement of senior judges, and extraordinary review of final judgments, among others, the Commission has issued the Opinion 904/2017, where it clearly underlines that "the judiciary should be insulated from quickly changing political winds". In addition, towards the end the Commission focuses on the legal Polish puzzle as a whole and concludes that "each of them [the new laws]... [put] at serious risks the independence of all parts of the judiciary in Poland".

Legislation on religious freedoms in Montenegro
Since 2015, the Venice Commission was included in process of legislative reform and regulation of various legal issues related to religious freedoms and rights of religious communities in Montenegro. First opinion of the VC on the initial draft law on freedom of religion in Montenegro, was issued in November 2015. It was followed by a prolonged period of internal consultations and additional deliberations in Montenegro, resulting in the creation of a new draft law, that was followed by another opinion of the VC, issued in June 2019, recommending various improvements and clarifications.

title: Venice Commission


text:
List of vice-chancellors of the University of Oxford

The vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford is the chief executive and leader of the University of Oxford. The following people have been vice-chancellors of the University of Oxford (formally known as The Right Worshipful the Vice-Chancellor):

Chronological list

 * 1230 – Elyas de Daneis
 * 1270 – Robert Steeton
 * 1288 – John Heigham
 * 1304 – John de Oseworhd
 * 1311 – Walter Gifford
 * 1325 – Richard Kamshale
 * 1333 – Richard FitzRalph
 * 1336 – John de Ayllesbury
 * 1337 – John de Reigham
 * 1347 – Hugh de Willoughby
 * 1348 – William de Hawkesworth
 * 1367 – John de Codeford
 * 1368 – John de Codeford
 * 1377 – Robert Aylesham
 * 1382 – Fr Peter Stokes
 * 1386 – Henry Nafford or Yafford
 * 1389 – John Lyndon
 * 1391 – John Ashwardby
 * 1394 – Richard Ullerston
 * 1396 – Nicholas Faux
 * 1397 – William Farendon or Faringdon
 * 1399 – John Snappe and others
 * 1401 – William Farendon
 * 1404 – Griffin Kirkadam
 * 1405 – William Farendon
 * 1406 – John Whytehede
 * 1407 – John Orum
 * 1422 – John Daventry
 * 1426 – Richard Roderham
 * 1430 – Thomas Eglesfield
 * 1431 – Richard Roderham
 * 1433 – John Burbach or Hurbach
 * 1434 – Thomas Gascoigne, Christopher Knolles, John Burbach
 * 1435 – John Burbach, Thomas Bonyngworth
 * 1436 – John Burbach, Thomas Greneley
 * 1437 – John Gorsuch, Thomas Greneley
 * 1438 – John Gorsuch, William Hawtrine
 * 1439 – John Gorsuch, John Burbach, Thomas Southam, Thomas Gascoigne
 * 1440 – John Gorsuch
 * 1441 – John Gorsuch, Robert Thwaytes, William Babington
 * 1442 – William Grey, William Babington, John Gorsuch, William Westkarre
 * 1443 – William Dowson, William Westkarre
 * 1444 – William Dowson, Richard Hall, William Westkarre
 * 1445 – William Dowson, John Selot
 * 1446 – William Westkarre, John Moreton, William Dowson
 * 1447 – John Burneby, William Dowson
 * 1448 – John Burneby
 * 1449 – John Willey, John Burneby, William Dowson
 * 1450 – Richard Ringstede, John Beke, Roger Bulkeley, John Van
 * 1451 – John Beke, John Van
 * 1452 – John Beke, Thomas Tweyn or Yweyn alias Chalke, Thomas Saunders
 * 1453 – Luke Lacock, Robert Thwayts, Thomas Saunders
 * 1454 – Thomas Tweyn, Thomas Saunders
 * 1455 – Thomas Twynge alias Bonifaunt
 * 1456 – Thomas Saunders
 * 1457 – Thomas Chippenham
 * 1458 – Walter Wynhale, Thomas Twynge
 * 1459 – John Danvers, Thomas Jaune or Jane
 * 1460 – Thomas Tweyn
 * 1461 – William Ive, Roger Bulkeley
 * 1462 – William Ive
 * 1463 – John Watts, Thomas Chaundler, David Husband, John Mulcaster
 * 1464 – Laurence Cokkys, Thomas Chaundler, Roger Bulkeley, John Caldbeck, Thomas Person
 * 1465 – Thomas Smith, Robert Ixworth, John Caldbeck, Thomas Chaundler
 * 1466 – Thomas Chaundler, John Caldbeck, Thomas Stevyn, Laurence Cokkys, Thomas Hill
 * 1467 – Thomas Chaundler, Thomas Stevyn, Thomas Walton
 * 1468 – Thomas Stevyn, Thomas Jaune
 * 1469 – Robert Tulley, Thomas Jaune
 * 1470 – Thomas Stevyn
 * 1480 – John Lane, William Sutton
 * 1481 – Richard Fitzjames, William Sutton
 * 1482 – Robert Wrangwais, William Sutton
 * 1484 – Richard Mayew, Thomas Pawnton
 * 1485 – Richard Mayew
 * 1486 – John Taylor
 * 1487 – Richard Estmond
 * 1488 – John Coldale
 * 1489 – John Coldale
 * 1490 – John Coldale
 * 1491 – Richard Fitzjames, John Coldale
 * 1492 – John Coldale
 * 1493 – Robert Smith
 * 1497 – William Atwater
 * 1498 – Thomas Harpur
 * 1499 – David Hays, William Atwater, Thomas Chaundeler
 * 1500 – William Atwater
 * 1501 – Thomas Banke, Hugh Saunders alias Shakspeere
 * 1502 – William Atwater, Thomas Banke, Hugh Saunders
 * 1503 – John Thornden or Thornton, John Kynton, Simon Grene alias Fotherby
 * 1504 – John Kynton, Robert Tehy or Thay
 * 1505 – Simon Grene, John Roper, John Adams
 * 1506 – John Thornden, William Fauntleroy
 * 1507 – John Thornden or Thornton, John Avery, John Kynton
 * 1508 – William Fauntleroy, John Thornden
 * 1509 – William Fauntleroy
 * 1510 – John Thornden, John Mychell
 * 1511 – William Fauntleroy, Thomas Drax, John Roper, John Cockys, Edmund Wylsford
 * 1512 – Edmund Wylsford, William Fauntleroy, John Kynton
 * 1513 – William Fauntleroy, John Kynton, John Thornden
 * 1514 – John Thornden, Lawrence Stubbs, Edmund Wylsford, Hugh Whytehead
 * 1515 – Edmund Wylsford
 * 1516 – Lawrence Stubbs
 * 1517 – Richard Duck or Doke
 * 1518 – Richard Duck or Doke
 * 1519 – Richard Barnack, Richard Duck or Doke
 * 1520 – William Broke or Brook, Richard Benger
 * 1521 – Richard Benger
 * 1522 – Richard Benger
 * 1523 – Thomas Musgrave
 * 1527 – Martin Lyndsey, John Cottisford
 * 1528 – John Cottisford
 * 1531 – Henry White
 * 1532 – John Cottisford, William Tresham
 * 1547 – Walter Wright
 * 1550 – William Tresham
 * 1551 – Owen Oglethorpe
 * 1552 – James Brookes or Brooks, Richard Marshall
 * 1553 – Richard Marshall
 * 1554 – John Warner
 * 1555 – Richard Smyth
 * 1556 – William Tresham, Thomas Raynolds
 * 1557 – Thomas Raynolds, Thomas Whyte
 * 1558 – William Tresham
 * 1559 – John Warner
 * 1560 – Francis Babbington
 * 1561 – Francis Babbington
 * 1562 – Thomas Whyte
 * 1564 – John Kennall
 * 1567 – Thomas Cowper
 * 1570 – Thomas Cowper
 * 1571 – Lawrence Humphrey
 * 1576 – Herbert Westfaling
 * 1577 – William Cole
 * 1578 – Martin Culpepper
 * 1579 – Tobias Matthew
 * 1580 – Arthur Yeldard
 * 1581 – William James
 * 1582 – Robert Hovenden
 * 1583 – Thomas Thornton
 * 1584 – John Underhill
 * 1585 – Edmund Lilly
 * 1586 – Daniel Bernard
 * 1587 – Francis Wyllis
 * 1588 – Martin Heton
 * 1589 – Nicholas Bond
 * 1590 – William James
 * 1592 – Nicholas Bond
 * 1593 – Edmund Lilly
 * 1596 – Thomas Ravys
 * 1598 – Thomas Singleton
 * 1599 – Thomas Thornton
 * 1600 – George Abbot
 * 1601 – George Ryves
 * 1602 – John Howson
 * 1603 – George Abbot
 * 1604 – John Williams
 * 1605 – George Abbot
 * 1606 – Henry Airay
 * 1607 – John King
 * 1611 – Thomas Singleton
 * 1614 – William Goodwyn
 * 1616 – Arthur Lake
 * 1617 – William Goodwyn
 * 1619 – John Prideaux
 * 1621 – William Piers
 * 1624 – John Prideaux
 * 1626 – William Juxon
 * 1628 – Accepted Frewen
 * 1630 – William Smyth
 * 1632 – Brian Duppa
 * 1634 – Robert Pincke
 * 1636 – Richard Baylie
 * 1638 – Accepted Frewen
 * 1640 – Christopher Potter
 * 1641 – John Prideaux
 * 1642 – John Prideaux in absentia (duties performed by Robert Pincke and then John Tolson as Pro-Vice-Chancellors)
 * 1643 – John Tolson, Robert Pincke
 * 1645 – Samuel Fell
 * 1648 – Edward Reynolds
 * 1650 – Daniel Greenwood
 * 1652 – John Owen
 * 1657 – John Conant
 * 1660 – Paul Hood
 * 1661 – Richard Baylie
 * 1662 – Walter Blandford
 * 1664 – Robert Say
 * 1666 – John Fell
 * 1669 – Peter Mews
 * 1673 – Ralph Bathurst
 * 1676 – Henry Clerk
 * 1677 – John Nicholas
 * 1679 – Timothy Halton
 * 1682 – John Lloyd
 * 1685 – Timothy Halton
 * 1686 – John Venn
 * 1687 – Gilbert Ironside
 * 1689 – Jonathan Edwards
 * 1692 – Henry Aldrich
 * 1695 – Fitzherbert Adams
 * 1697 – John Meare
 * 1698 – William Paynter
 * 1700 – Roger Mander
 * 1702 – William Delaune
 * 1706 – William Lancaster
 * 1710 – Thomas Brathwait
 * 1712 – Bernard Gardiner
 * 1715 – John Baron
 * 1718 – Robert Shippen
 * 1723 – John Mather
 * 1728 – Edward Butler
 * 1732 – William Holmes
 * 1735 – Stephen Niblett
 * 1738 – Theophilus Leigh
 * 1741 – Walter Hodges
 * 1744 – Euseby Isham
 * 1747 – John Purnell
 * 1750 – John Browne
 * 1753 – George Huddesford
 * 1756 – Thomas Randolph
 * 1759 – Joseph Browne
 * 1765 – David Durell
 * 1768 – Nathan Wetherell
 * 1772 – Thomas Fothergill
 * 1776 – George Horne
 * 1780 – Samuel Dennis
 * 1784 – Joseph Chapman
 * 1788 – John Cooke
 * 1792 – John Wills
 * 1796 – Scrope Berdmore
 * 1797 – Edmund Isham
 * 1798 – Michael Marlow
 * 1802 – Whittington Landon
 * 1806 – Henry Richards
 * 1807 – John Parsons
 * 1810 – John Cole
 * 1814 – Thomas Lee
 * 1818 – Frodsham Hodson
 * 1820 – George William Hall
 * 1824 – Richard Jenkyns
 * 1828 – John Collier Jones
 * 1832 – George Rowley
 * 1836 – Ashhurst Turner Gilbert
 * 1840 – Philip Wynter
 * 1844 – Benjamin Parsons Symons
 * 1848 – Frederick Charles Plumptre
 * 1852 – Richard Lynch Cotton
 * 1856 – David Williams
 * 1858 – Francis Jeune
 * 1862 – John Prideaux Lightfoot
 * 1866 – Francis Leighton
 * 1870 – Henry George Liddell
 * 1874 – James Edwards Sewell
 * 1878 – Evan Evans
 * 1882 – Benjamin Jowett
 * 1886 – James Bellamy
 * 1890 – Henry Boyd
 * 1894 – John Richard Magrath
 * 1898 – Sir William Reynell Anson
 * 1899 – Thomas Fowler
 * 1901 – David Binning Monro
 * 1904 – William Walter Merry
 * 1906 – Thomas Herbert Warren
 * 1910 – Charles Buller Heberden
 * 1913 – Thomas Banks Strong
 * 1917 – Herbert Edward Douglas Blakiston
 * 1920 – Lewis Richard Farnell
 * 1923 – Joseph Wells
 * 1926 – Francis William Pember
 * 1929 – Frederick Homes Dudden
 * 1932 – Francis John Lys
 * 1935 – Alexander Dunlop Lindsay
 * 1938 – George Stuart Gordon
 * 1941 – Sir William David Ross
 * 1944 – Sir Richard Winn Livingstone
 * 1947 – William Teulon Swan Stallybrass
 * 1948 – The Very Reverend John Lowe
 * 1951 – Sir Cecil Maurice Bowra
 * 1954 – Alic Halford Smith
 * 1957 – John Cecil Masterman
 * 1958 – Thomas Sherrer Ross Boase
 * 1960 – Arthur Lionel Pugh Norrington
 * 1962 – Walter Fraser Oakeshott
 * 1964 – Kenneth Clinton Wheare
 * 1966 – John Norman Davidson Kelly
 * 1966 – Kenneth Turpin
 * 1969 – Alan Bullock, Lord Bullock of Leafield
 * 1973 – Sir John Habakkuk
 * 1977 – Sir Rex Richards
 * 1981 – Sir Geoffrey Warnock
 * 1985 – Lord Neill of Bladen
 * 1989 – Sir Richard Southwood
 * 1993 – Sir Peter North
 * 1997 – Sir Colin Lucas
 * 2004 – John Hood
 * 2009 – Andrew D. Hamilton
 * 2016 – Dame Louise Richardson
 * 2023 – Irene Tracey


text:
Azkoitia

Azkoitia (Azcoitia) is a town located in the province of Gipuzkoa, in the Autonomous Community of Basque Country, in northern Spain. It is also the seat of the municipality of the same name.

Geographical setting
Azkoitia and the municipality of the same name, are located on and around the upper Urola river valley, centered on a small alluvial plain surrounded by the Basque mountains. Except for the valley itself, the terrain is rather rugged, with elevations ranging to little less than 950 meters.

Population

As of 2004, the municipality numbered 10,946 inhabitants, of whom 5,324 (49.867%) were men and 5,262 (50.133%) were women. Age is distributed among the sexes rather evenly with children and adolescents (0 to 17 years of age) forming 16.235% of the population, adults (18 to 54 years of age) making up 53.744%, and senior citizens forming the remaining 30.021%.

Historical relevance
Azkoitia was the birthplace of the mother of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuit religious order. Ignatius' maternal grandfather, Don Martin Garcia de Licona, had purchased Balda Tower in the mid-15th century. Recurring bloody encounters in the region persuaded the king, Henry IV of Castile, to reduce the tower from a fortress to a courthouse. On 13 July 1467 Don Martin's daughter, Dona Marina Saenz de Licona Balda married Don Beltran Ibanez de Onaz y Loyola from neighbouring Azpeitia in the Licona family home in Azkoitia. The original wedding contract still exists.

Loyola's birth house is still preserved as a museum a part of a large Jesuit compound. It is located a few kilometers east of Azkoitia's city center, at the small community of Azpeitia, and is a major tourist attraction.

title: Azkoitia


text:
Talk:Resting ion channel

I noticed several redirects from leakage ion channel. I think the only one to call them Resting channels is the Kandell book, everyone else refers to them as leak channels. Hodgin and Huxley called them leakage channels. Would it be better to have "Leakage ion channel" be the main article? Nrets 14:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. I didn't know which was the main name when I wrote the page. --Delldot 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Resting ion channel


text: User talk:82.80.46.55

title: User talk:82.80.46.55


text:
Ataun

Ataun is a town located at the foot of the Aralar Range in the Goierri region of the province of Gipuzkoa, in the autonomous community of the Basque Country, in the north of Spain. The town consists of three major parishes - San Martin, San Gregorio and Aia - along with several other minor boroughs.

Notable of Ataun

 * Jose Migel Barandiaran, anthropologist, ethnographer and priest

title: Ataun


text: Category:British brands

title: Category:British brands


text:
Talk:Comet (tank)

There are some better images on the Commons, can someone upload them here? Oberiko 14:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Novel featuring the Comet
For anyone interested in the Comet's use after D-Day I can recommend Peter Elstob's Warriors for the Working Day. Although a novel, the book is drawn from Elstob's own experiences, first on Shermans and then Comets.

There's an obituary for the author (he died in 2002) here: Soldier scribe relished risk, misadventure Reading it, I suspect he would warrant a Wiki article himself. Ian Dunster 15:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I read it last year, very good.Keith-264 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Someone has since written articles on both the book and the author here: Warriors For the Working Day and here: Peter Elstob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.168 (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ammunition
Any documentation that Armour-piercing discarding sabot were used in this tank? Anon user 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes - see Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-1950 by David Fletcher and Richard C. Harvey. This shows both APCBC and APDS were used on the 77mm and provides comparative velocity and penetration figures against other types.  Lkchild (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Korean War usage
Are there any sources for the assertion that the Comet was used in Korea? 209.244.31.35 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just found a photo of a Comet in Korea thanks to the Imperial War Museum image archive, so nevermind. 209.244.31.35 (talk) 06:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ammo
"The designers used a new gun, the "77mm HV". This gun used the same calibre (76.2 mm) projectile as the 17 pdr but the shell casing was from the older QF 3 inch 20 cwt gun (loaded to higher pressures) and was different to 17 pdr ammunition. It had a lower muzzle velocity than the 17-pounder but the ammunition was much more compact and more easily stored and handled within the tank." This doesn't make sense, you can't 'load a shell casing to higher pressure', although you can fill it with a higher energy explosive or use steel with different fragmentation properties. The QF 3-inch was an HAA gun intriduced in the 1920s and remained in service until about 1943, some were converted to anti-tank guns. An HE shell was introduced for 17-pr in 1944 and was part of the standard ammo load in anti-tank batteries, it did use a higher strength steel than some other Brtish HE shell designs. However, from the ammunition was much more compact and more easily stored and handled I think someone is in the ignoramus corner and actually means it used a smaller cartridge case, this would be consistent with lower MV, but doesn't really enlighten us as to what is meant by loaded to higher pressures Nfe (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

 * the usual propellant for British ammunition was Cordite and the 'loading' depends on the amount actually filling the cartridge case, and the grade of cordite used. So ammunition may be a 'light' load to minimise stresses on the gun components, or may be a 'heavy' loading, to maximise performance. So in the 77mm HVs case, it means that the cartridge case was filled with a grade and amount of cordite that gave the stated muzzle velocity, lower than the 17 pdr's because of the shorter gun barrel. A too 'heavy' load increase barrel erosion and stresses on the gun, and makes for increased muzzle blast, which can give away the vehicles position, especially at night.

 * The shorter QF 3 inch 20 Cwt cartridge case was used in order to shorten the length of the 17 pdr's breech, allowing it (the 77mm HV, as the modified 17 pdr was called) to be used within the diameter of the Cromwell (Comet) turret ring. The shorter overall round-length also made for easier handling within the turret and fighting compartment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.70.250 (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the few British Tanks
It was armed with a 77mm HV, a derivative of the 17 pounder, with the result that it was one of the few British tanks with the firepower to challenge late war German designs.

Given that from D-day to the end of the war, between 25% and 50% of British Shermans were 17-pounder armed Fireflys. Then add to that the Achilles and Archer, and the small number of Challengers - then I think it's incorrect to say "few". It's perfectly true only a minority of British tanks had "the firepower to challenge late war German designs", but I think it's fair to say it was a substantial minority. They were not rare, as the word "few" implies.Catsmeat (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree (although one could argue about the Achilles and Archer point as these weren't tanks), and it is also uncited so it is original research.
 * How about It was armed with the 77mm HV, a derivative of the 17 pounder, which was effective against late war German tanks especially when firing APDS rounds.? I can find a citation for this I am sure. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 * That seems spot on. Unless one could quote a source stating exactly how many Fireflys and Challengers served from 1944 to 1945, and how many regular Shermans, Churchills and Cromwells, then making any kind of statement on the overall proportion of 17-pounder tanks in service is problematic.Catsmeat (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 * Once I dug out a reference, I went for something slightly different. Have a look, change if you like QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I took "few" as the number of designs not the total number of tanks on battlefield. (a quick estimate but total number of Fireflys, Comet, and Challengers built is about 10% of number of Cromwells and Churchills built) As it stands, the new lede changes the focus from German tanks in general (Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, King Tiger) to one specific model which I don't think is helpful to the reader. Any analysis of the Comet should appear in the main text first before summary in the lede GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that bringing in the Panther is unhelpful. As the article must be useful to everybody. Even people who have never heard of the Panther, are unaware of its reputation, and would not know that a having a gun (in some ways) better than the Panther's is no small thing. Catsmeat (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, fair enough. Given the long 75mm of the Panther was the most powerful German tank gun of comparable calibre (i.e., excluding the 88mm and 128mm tank guns) perhaps "more powerful than German tank guns of similar calibre" would work? QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What the article could use is some statements about the Comet in the round as a weapon system - tanks on both sides were a product of gun, armour and mobility. There is danger in extrapolation from one gun's performance in comparison to the other to a statement about the performance as whole, or at the very least a risk of a weighting of one point over other valid ones. What does the source cited for the gun performance actually say about Comet? GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

As a 1945 tank the Comet was very good, although it would have been better if it had entered service in 1944, in time for the D-Day invasion. But as a fighting vehicle, with a good crew, it could take on a Panther or Tiger I without too much trouble, but as in so many actions, the one who sees the other first, and gets in the first shot, often wins. So as a fighting vehicle it was saved by its reliability, speed, and above all by its gun. The 77mm HV was not quite as powerful as the normal 17 pdr, but was still more than adequate for all except very long range frontal shots against the later German tanks.

As a design, the Comet was only let down by the flat driver's and gunner's front plate that was less effective than sloped armour. But other than that, it was pretty good. Drivers reckoned it could be driven like a sports car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comet (tank). 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/20040604205541/http://www.boltonipms.co.uk/Tracks/Tracks_Real_Thing/Comet_Duxford.html to http://www.boltonipms.co.uk/Tracks/Tracks_Real_Thing/Comet_Duxford.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) 06:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Comet (tank)


text:
User talk:Jacketman

Welcome!
- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]14:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jacketman


text: User talk:86.132.179.170

title: User talk:86.132.179.170


text:
Pegau

Pegau is a town in the Leipzig district in Saxony, Germany, situated in a fertile plain, on the White Elster, 18 m. S.W. from Leipzig by the railway to Zeitz.

It has two Evangelical churches, that of St. Lawrence being a fine Gothic structure, a 16th-century town-hall; a very old hospital and an agricultural school. In the 19th Century, its industries included the manufacture of felt, boots and metal wares.

Rathaus
The Rathaus (town hall) is located in the middle of the city and has a distinctive character. It was built from 1559 to 1561 by Paul Widemann and Hieronymus Lotter in the style of the German Renaissance. It is extremely similar to Leipzig's Altes Rathaus (built-in 1556/57), which Widemann and Lotter had previously worked on. The Rathausturm (town hall tower) can be climbed during the summer season. At a height of 30 meters, the tower offers a panoramic view in which the viewer can sometimes see to Leipzig. The town hall is the seat of the city administration and has a large meeting hall, which is used for youth consecration, graduation parties, and other festivities.

History
Pegau grew up around a Benedictine monastery founded in 1096 by Wiprecht of Groitzsch but does not appear as a town before the close of the 12th century. Markets were held here and its prosperity was further enhanced by its position on the main road running east and west. In the monastery, which was dissolved in 1539, a valuable chronicle was compiled, the Annales pegavienses, covering the period from 1039 to 1227. The town hosted witch trials in 1604-1605.

In January 2012 it absorbed the former municipality Kitzen.

title: Pegau