text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lark News

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

The result of the debate was speedy KEEP (nomination withdrawn). -Doc (?) 22:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Lark News
commercial vanity and non-notable website. Not as widely read as Onion Gator1 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Withdraw Nomination - Gator1 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- not vanity I am article author, and am not affiliated with Lark in any way. Certainly not as widely read as the Onion, but how many such sites are? I started the article because I recently heard about Lark from friends (also not affiliated with Lark). The article's external link (from June 2004) says that they have 15,000 hits per month, and discusses how Lark has bigshot readers in Hollywood. Sounds at least notable to me, although of course not so much as the Onion. Google search for "Lark News" (in quotes) gives 105,000 results. --Staecker 19:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Grid.org

Suggested move
This article should be renamed to "grid.org" (which is currently just a redirect here), and then "United Devices Cancer Research Project" can redirect to it. This will allow the new grid.org article to be expanded to discuss all of the projects that grid.org has done, and not just the Cancer project: cancer, rosetta, anthrax, smallbox, hmmer, webload. The rename will also correspond better with the initiative that the Polish wikipedia has started pl:Grid.org -- Bovineone 18:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I've removed the notice of your RM and the template here. This is not a self-evident move as far as I can tell. Please let some time pass to allow people to notice the page and respond to your suggestions before posting a request at WP:RM. You should try to build consensus for your move before requesting a move. I also can't see any actual argumentation as to why the name should be changed either in the article or in your motivation. That you want to expand the article is not a reason to move it. To me it seems as if the current title is the appropriate one.
 * Peter Isotalo 23:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this is an explanation: "This will allow the new grid.org article to be expanded to discuss all of the projects that grid.org has done, and not just the Cancer project: cancer, rosetta, anthrax, smallbox, hmmer, webload. The rename will also correspond better with the initiative that the Polish wikipedia has started". I don't think the WP:RM it should have been removed. Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've added basic sections to the current page, describing some of the other projects so that it will be more obvious that the page should not be limited to just the Cancer Research Project. Hopefully others can help contribute more details to the article.  If you have an opinion on the decision to rename this article to "grid.org" and make "United Devices Cancer Research Project" a redirect, please preceed your comment with Support or Oppose. -- Bovineone 19:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Advocacy
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for advocacy. Discussions about the current up-to-the-minute state of the United Devices research projects are best held in other places, such as discussion forums or a blog. The Wikipedia content should deal with verifiable facts. The recent modifications by MoonFlute do not appear to be directed toward improving Wikipedia in good faith. I tried to distill the long quotations repeatedly provided by MoonFlute into statements that should be readily verifiable, but my changes were once again reverted to the long quotations from the grid.org forum. I will revert yet again and see what happens. --Ghewgill 10:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Grid.org's demise
Does anyone know why grid.org has decided to shut down? If so, please add it to the article. With grid.org's demise, much of this article will need to be changed from present tense to past tense. -- JHP 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've made the present tense to past tense changes. Wdfarmer 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Grid is no more, success!
The Grid project is completed as of noon CST on 4/27/07. More information can be found at.

Since it sounds like that link won't be working after a week, here's the whole quoted post. With seven years and five projects under its belt, Grid.org has successfully completed its mission: To evangelize the benefits (and demonstrate the viability and security) of large-scale Internet-based grid computing. Therefore, it is with great pride for all the accomplishments of this pioneering resource, and above all with the utmost gratitude to each of our members around the globe, that we announce Grid.org will be retiring on Friday, April 27, 2007.

We’ll be making a public announcement on the site later this week, but we felt it was important to give you, our loyal member base, an early heads-up out of respect for the years of support you’ve given to Grid.org. This way you’ll have time to gather final statistics, exchange contact info, and prepare for the official shutdown.

What exactly is happening:

At 12:00 noon Central Time on Friday, April 27, Grid.org will retire: Jobs will stop running, forums will be closed, and the website will be updated to reflect the retired status of this resource. We will leave the actual servers up for 1 week, so agent messages about this action can continue to be sent to members around the globe who might not check forums regularly. We will also leave the Stats up for one week so you have plenty of time to gather this data. After that, only the Home and Projects pages will remain, along with the instructions for uninstalling the agent ( http://www.grid.org/help/faq_uninstalling_agent.htm ).

Why?

Grid.org has completed its established mission to prove the benefits and viability of Internet-based grid computing. Grid.org was the largest and most ambitious public interest grid venture ever attempted when it was conceived – and thanks to Grid.org (and more specifically to all of you), today such a grid is no longer a novelty. Many public grids are now available, sponsored by large organizations better positioned to provide support to millions of member volunteers and the scientists who leverage their processing power. So, with the underlying technologies now well established globally in both public and private research programs, Grid.org’s goal of establishing the underlying technology has been achieved.

But what about…

We realize that over the past few months, Grid.org has made several announcements about upgrades coming in anticipation of a couple of new projects that we were working on. While we were fairly optimistic about these projects being launched, they ultimately fell through for a number of reasons. We realize that many of you had looked forward to participating in a beta program ahead of launching these projects, and we’re sorry you won’t have that opportunity.

Moving on: Where to go from here?

It’s clear from your years of loyalty to Grid.org that Internet-based research projects of this kind are important to you… and so we’re sure many of you will take your valuable resources to other projects of this kind that are ready and willing to accept you as new members.

Below are just a few of the projects we encourage you to investigate:

> World Community Grid ( http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ ), operated by IBM

> Distributed.net ( http://www.distributed.net/ ), operated by distributed.net

> Compute Against Cancer ( http://www.computeagainstcancer.org/ ), operated by National Cancer Institute

> Folding@Home ( http://www.stanford.edu/group/pandegroup/folding/ ), operated by Stanford University

> fightAIDS@Home ( http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/ ), operated by Olson Lab at Scripps Research Institute

> LHC@home ( http://athome.web.cern.ch/athome/ ), operated by CERN

> Distributed Folding ( http://www.distributedfolding.org/ ), operated by a group of partners including Hogue Bioinformatics Research Lab, Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto

> SETI@home ( http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ), operated by University of California at Berkeley

Also, here are a few great sites to visit to learn more about these and other projects:

> http://enterthegrid.com/

> http://gridcafe.web.cern.ch/gridcafe/gridprojects/fora.html

> http://www.ogf.org/

> http://www.grid.org.il/

Uninstalling the agent

The agent will no longer be processing work after Friday at noon, so you will want to uninstall it from your home device. Here’s how: http://www.grid.org/help/faq_uninstalling_agent.htm. Some more explicit instructions, including Troubleshooting, will be posted online Friday when Grid.org actually retires.

Last but not least

As we’ve tried to emphasize not only in this announcement but throughout our years of operations, we are fully aware of the debt of gratitude we owe to all of you, our loyal members.

The excellent work Grid.org has done, both in contributing massive research power to critical health research and in establishing this kind of research as viable, would not have been possible without your faith, efforts, and donations of compute power and goodwill. There is no superlative high enough to describe the value we place on your ongoing support for Grid.org, and so we simply say Thank you, and we hope you feel as proud as we do of the work you’ve done.

Sincerely,

The Grid.org Team --Pilot_51 ( ☏ ) 03:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The above comment was moved here from the Grid MP article. -- Bovineone 05:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've extracted the following relevant text from http://grid.org/home.htm, lest it too disappear soon. Someone may wish to use it as source material. Browser requests for Grid forum URLs are currently redirecting to that URL. Wdfarmer 19:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

======

GRID.ORG ™ - Grid Computing Projects - Home

BREAKING NEWS: GRID.ORG MISSION COMPLETE

On Friday, April 27, 2007, Grid.org announced it has completed its mission to demonstrate the viability and benefits of large-scale Internet-based grid computing, and will be retiring its famous efforts to support critical health research.

Grid.org was the largest and most ambitious public interest grid venture ever attempted, and thanks to Grid.org and its millions of members, dozens of similar global grid projects have been able to catch on and succeed by following its footsteps.

Thank you to all our members!

The excellent work Grid.org has done, both in contributing massive compute power to critical health research and in establishing this Internet-based model as beneficial, would not have been possible without the faith, efforts, and support of our millions of members worldwide. Thank you so much for your years of ongoing support!

Facts and Figures

As of April 2007, Grid.org managed 3,732,696 global devices, with 1,340,913 registered members who contributed 210 years of CPU time daily

Projects to Date

Grid.org projects include:

(2001) Cancer Research Project, with Intel (2002) Anthrax Project, with Intel and Microsoft (2004) Smallpox Research Grid Project, with IBM (2005) Human Proteome Folding Project, with IBM

United Devices worked with IBM and Accelrys on the Smallpox Research Grid Project, a joint research effort to identify candidates for developing new drugs that, for the first time, would combat the smallpox virus post-infection.

The first counter-bioterrorism project to be powered by United Devices was the Anthrax Research Project. Working with scientists from Oxford University, United Devices provided its Grid MP technology to screen billions of molecules for suitability as potential treatments for advanced-stage Anthrax.

The first grid.org project, the Cancer Research Project sponsored by Intel, was a groundbreaking success. Working with the world's top researchers from Oxford University and the National Foundation for Cancer Research, grid.org was able to screen billions of target molecules against known cancer target proteins.

======

Loss of reference
grid.org has remove forum section very quickly. Should we remove all reference URL to grid.org forum now? JingJun 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

 * No. They may still be accessible through the Wayback Machine, or perhaps by other means. The references show that, at the very least, references were once available. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication that all of the References but one are broken. I think they should all be marked as broken. Is there a way to do that with a reference? - Dougher (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A total cover-up of bad news
Let's get real here: unknown thousands of contributors were very bitter to find out, thanks only to the detective work of some others, that the project was sending them USELESS, REDUNDANT work and that in fact the project had been abandoned and the scientists had walked away from it! Thank goodness that distributed computing has survived in Folding@Home, World Community Grid and other places. The person above who noted that even the forum was closed is correct; it appears there was too much criticism for their liking.

I believe someone has been "retouching" this page with all nice things to say. Not so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I also recall that the Anthrax testing was added to the cancer testing system silently... I recall a coworker pointing out that his client was no longer working on cancer (the cause for which he downloaded and promoted the software to others) and promptly removed the client. I recall something about the outcry on The Register but have been unable to find it.--MRNasher (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Grid.org


text:
Tragus (ear)

The tragus is a small pointed eminence of the external ear, situated in front of the concha, and projecting backward over the meatus. It also is the name of hair growing at the entrance of the ear. Its name comes the Ancient Greek tragos, meaning 'goat', and is descriptive of its general covering on its under surface with a tuft of hair, resembling a goat's beard. The nearby antitragus projects forwards and upwards.

Because the tragus faces rearwards, it aids in collecting sounds from behind. These sounds are delayed more than sounds arriving from the front, assisting the brain to sense front vs. rear sound sources.

In a positive fistula test (for the presence of a fistula from cholesteatoma to the labyrinth), pressure on the tragus causes vertigo or eye deviation by inducing movement of perilymph.

Other animals
The tragus is a key feature in many bat species. As a piece of skin in front of the ear canal, it plays an important role in directing sounds into the ear for prey location and navigation via echolocation. Because the tragus tends to be prominent in bats, it is an important feature in identifying bat species. The tragus allows echolocating bat species to vertically discriminate the objects around them, which is key to identifying where prey items and obstacles are in three-dimensional space. In studies where an individual's tragi are temporarily glued out of their normal positions, the bat's navigational acuity is one-fourth as effective as individuals with unmodified tragi. Based on this study, the authors concluded that the tragus's function is to create acoustic cues to determine the direction of a target in the vertical plane. Not all echolocating bats possess tragi, however. Horseshoe bats are one such family; the way in which the outer bottom edge of the ear folds in on itself is thought to function in a similar way to the tragus in other families.

title: Tragus (ear)


text:
LeRoy Irvin

LeRoy Irvin (born September 15, 1957) is an American former professional football player who was a cornerback in the National Football League (NFL), primarily with the Los Angeles Rams from 1980 to 1989. He was selected to the Pro Bowl in 1986 and 1987. He holds the record for most punt return yards in a single game (207), set against the Atlanta Falcons in 1981. Irvin is one of only a few players in NFL history to be named All-Pro at two positions. Irvin was born at Fort Dix in New Jersey and attended high school at Glenn Hills High School in Augusta, Georgia. He began his college career in 1976 at the University of Kansas.

Irvin made two Pro Bowl appearances (1985, 1986) and was named All-Pro four times (1981, 1982, 1985 and 1986). He was an assistant football coach at California State University, Northridge in 1992.

Irvin currently works with former Los Angeles Rams teammate Vince Ferragamo at End Zone Mortgage in Anaheim Hills, California. He started a company with former Rams teammate Eric Dickerson, Larry Westbrook and Mike Hope called Original Mini's, Inc. The company holds an NFL license and offers a line of NFL Licensed products. He appeared in the 1986 Rams promotional video, Let's Ram It, where he called himself the "Iceman" and stated that interceptions were his game.

Irvin is the father of four children (Leroy III, Charles, Sarah, and Julius) and currently resides in Anaheim Hills.

title: LeRoy Irvin


text:
User:Polyade

Hello visitor on this page,

my main interest here in wikipedia lies within mathematics. I (mostly) enjoy reading and eventually editing articles in the math section of wikipedia (as I learned this can be a good way to refresh mathematical knowledge). I am a "learned" mathematician (in the moment working somewhere in the telco industry (in Germany)), with a bias towards pure mathematics (in particular algebraic and analytic number theory, abstract algebra and combinatorics and their interconnections). But I also have an interest in algorithms (for example in symbolic algebra, applied mathematics, cryptography).

If you want to drop me a message just go to my talk page.

On the name "Polyade": The name "Polyade" is chosen in honour of the logician Emil Post who once wrote a paper (round 1930) named "Polyadic groups" in which he studied and classified certain "multary associative structures" i.e. generalizations of the binary operation in a group to a multi-argument situation. Today there exist many different concepts of this kind in different areas of mathematics, for example the notion of an operad which emerged in algebraic topology and now has invaded also quantum field theory.

title: User:Polyade


text:
Talk:Franco-Dutch War

Merger proposal
The Third Anglo-Dutch War is essentially the naval part of the Franco-Dutch War. The article on the former is however much longer! It also contains a description of the land hostilities! I therefore suggest that the text of the Third Anglo-Dutch War be merged into the article on the Franco-Dutch War. At the same time, the Third Anglo-Dutch War article should be either (a) reduced to a small article refering to the Franco-Dutch War, or (b) reduced to a copy of the naval part of the text that it now contains. Please let me know what you think. AWhiteC (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't know, really. Thing is, I'm Dutch and I study history. The Third Anglo-Dutch War is part of Dutch history, with Michiel de Ruyter being a national hero and all, I've only read some parts about the Franco-Dutch war. So in conclusion my point is I don't know because I'm probably biased! -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

 * The idea of the Third War is, I expect, much better known: I've read and heard a bit about the Anglo-Dutch Wars in my college history classes, but never heard of a Franco-Dutch war before. However, the fighting considered in these two articles is really significantly different, considering that the Third War lasted much less time than the Franco-Dutch War.  Consequently, I don't think it would be right to put both wars under this title.  Or if you mean to merge them into a single title: if we did this, what would we call them?  Unless you could find some standard name for the unified conflict, other than Franco-Dutch, I think this would be somewhat of original research.  Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Maybe because its considered as a single part of a larger event, we should let it stand. Compare Seven Years' War and French and Indian War. -- Soetermans |  is listening  |  what he'd do now?  10:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I think that there are several cogent reasons to have separate articles. First of all, if the one concept is a subset of the other, there should be separate articles under the Wiki summary style policy, if the subset is of sufficient length. This now, is clearly the case. The second reason is that separate articles allow us to view the war from different points of view (always desirable under the NPOV policy), i.e. the French and the English attitude and policy towards the war, which were much different. This also means that the Third Anglo-Dutch War is not simply the "naval part" and that events on land concerning the English policy are very relevant. The third reason relates to the first two: what causes this question to arise in the first place is the short length of Franco-Dutch War. If it had been a decent-sized article instead of a stub, and contained a fair description of the many events of the years 1672-1678, it would have been obvious no merge was indicated. So, in the desirable situation the two articles are not merged and the correct way to attain it is to fill out the "French" part.--MWAK (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree with the Seven Years' War/French and Indian War analogy. Keeping them separate is fine. But at any rate, this article needs to be fleshed out considerably more. This should not be a shorter article than Third Anglo-Dutch War. (I don't buy the "It's not well-known" excuse. This was one of the major wars of the reign of Louis XIV, and involved almost all of the European powers at one time or another. It's nowhere near as obscure as you guys are making it out to be). Funnyhat (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, what Funnyhat says. This is not an obscure war at all.  It's one of the major European wars of the seventeenth century.  And this article is shamefully bad. john k (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping separate articles. It is commonplace for inter-related wars to have separate articles in Wikipedia and in other reference works. The different interlocking wars belong to different long-term historical narratives, which people may wish to research individually. Merging everything in to one article would make this much harder to do. Wimstead (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch War
"often called simply the Dutch War" which English language sources call it the Dutch War? If they do not then it needs removing (or better moved into a footnote with details of who calls it that in which languages) because as it is, it is misleading and creates a neologism, unless it is a common name in English. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a direct translation of the French and Dutch names so should stand I think... Perhaps it could be clearer that it derives from non-English usage though. —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It also seems to have some English use too, see here —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits
I've rewritten these but they helped improved the article :). General observations;

- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; we need to be careful about overwriting ie large amounts of details that are 'interesting' but not essential to someone seeking general information on this topic. More detail does not necessarily equal better or relevant.I do the same to my own edits. It may be different in the Dutch version (because its your history) but not here; if you look at some of the rewrites I've done on the battles, a lot of the campaign stuff is in there. Plus lists of the towns Charles agreed to divide with Louis aren't really helpful (especially as it never happened).

- A lot of the additions are not sourced; that's fine, because I'm happy to dig them out but again, its not a good use of energy to include paragraphs of detail with no source, that don't

I think this worked fine on the Glorious Revolution and even when I don't agree, thinking through why I don't agree improves the article. So I wanted to explain it. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * Well, these are not "details" within the scope of the subject. You must keep in mind that there is a very extensive literature dedicated to this war and that the text is still an extreme summarising of it. When to decide what is "relevant" or not, we must abstain from personal preference but try to adhere to common standards. If the text would relate how Louis dressed each day, that would be relevant to a sartorial point of view but irrelevant within the normal standards of a war subject. The text about a war should relate politics, war aims, strategy, logistics, sieges, battles. Quite straightforward, really.

 * On some points, you do not quite seem to get the gist of events. The deal Louis made with Leopold is essential to understand the course of the war. Only knowing of the deal, we can understand why the French tried to appear not to violate the neutrality of the Spanish Netherlands and why Leopold was so hesitant to confront the French king. Those Dutch towns do not simply make some boring list: they reflect Charles' most fundamental fears and hopes. The hope to take over the world's richest trade. And the fear France would do the same. So these locations tend to, and should, pop up time and again in an adequate treatment of the subject. Thus, we must make explicit why. The argument that Charles of Spain only died in 1700 and the English never got those towns is rather bizarre. That's like glossing over Operation Barbarossa in a narrative of the Second World War because, well, the Germans never reached Moscow, did they?--MWAK (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

 * As regards the Treaty of Breda: yes, the Dutch were in a hurry to end the war. Charles procrastinated, therefore the Dutch executed the Raid on the Medway and then Charles was in a hurry to end the war :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Belligerents
England—fighting the Third Anglo-Dutch War as an ally to France—is included as a belligerent, while Sweden—fighting the Scanian War (against the Danes and Dutch) and in northern Germany against Brandenburg as an ally to France—is not included as a belligerent. What is the reasoning behind this? I admit this war is not my main interest, but according to the sources I've seen, like Micheal Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015 (pages 46–47), the Swedish wars were part of the greater Franco-Dutch War, which makes me curious? If Sweden should not be included, a reasoning as well as a source for that would be helpful, so that we can prevent future edit-wars by redirecting editors to the talkpage. Imonoz (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What happend to the Campaignbox?
The campaignbox is impossible to edit it seems DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The campaignbox has linked to a redirect page ("Dutch War" instead of "Franco-Dutch War). I've tried to change it but that does not seem to do anything.--Palastwache (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Edit: Now it seems to work.--Palastwache (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Map that shows the French positions in the summer of 1672 is problematic
The Spanish Netherlands, Dutch Flanders and Western Germany weren't occupied by France and the map is inaccurate in other ways too. Does somebody know were to find or make a better alternative? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Franco-Dutch War


text:
Volta a Catalunya

The Volta a Catalunya (Tour of Catalonia, Vuelta a Cataluña) is a road bicycle race held annually in Catalonia, Spain.

It is one of three World Tour stage races in Spain, together with the Vuelta a España and the Tour of the Basque Country. The race has had several different calendar dates, having been previously run in September, June and May. Since 2010 it has been on the calendar in late March as part of the UCI World Tour.

Raced over seven days, it covers the autonomous community of Catalonia in Northeast Spain and contains one or more stages in the mountain region of the Pyrenees. The race traditionally finishes with a stage in Barcelona, Catalonia's capital, on a circuit with the famous Montjuïc climb and park.

First held in 1911, the Volta a Catalunya is the fourth-oldest still-existing cycling stage race in the world. Only the Tour de France (1903), the Tour of Belgium (1908) and the Giro d'Italia (1909) are older. It was the second cycling event organized on the Iberian Peninsula, after the amateur and sub-23 race Volta a Tarragona (1908), also held in Catalonia but no longer on the calendar. Catalan cycling icon Mariano Cañardo won the race seven times in the 1920s and 1930s, setting an unsurpassed record.

In 2018, the one-day women's competition reVolta was organised on the same day of the last men's stage.

The pioneering days
The Volta a Catalunya was created in 1911 by cycling journalist Miquel Arteman, editor of Barcelona-based sports newspaper El Mundo Deportivo. Arteman partnered with Narcisse Masferrer, president of Spanish Cycling Union, and Jaume Grau, founder and owner of El Mundo Deportivo.

The first edition was held from 6 to 8 January 1911. 43 riders signed up but only 34 started on Barcelona's Plaça de Sarrià. The first stage was run from Barcelona to Tarragona at 97 km, the second from Tarragona to Lleida at 111 km and the final 157 km stage from Lleida back to Barcelona, totaling 363 km. 22 riders finished the race on the Velodrome di Sants. Catalan rider Seabastià Masdeu won the first and third stages and became the first overall winner. The winner's average speed was 23 km/h.

The Club Deportivo Barcelona, presided by Miquel Arteman, took on the race organization in 1912 and 1913. The event was still organized on a three-stage format and amassed large numbers of spectators along the largely unpaved roads. Local Catalan riders Josép Magdalena and Juan Martí won the second and third editions, respectively. After 1913, the Volta a Catalunya was suspended because of World War I; it was reprised in 1920, but was discontinued again over the next two years because of the chaotic return of the race.

Revival and Spanish Civil War
The race was revived in 1923 for its fifth edition. The organization was taken over by the Unión Deportiva de Sants, which also supported Barcelona football teams. The race grew to a one-week event and gained prestige fast. It became a fixture on the calendar, attracting more foreign participants, mainly from France and Italy. The 1920s and 1930s became the era of Catalan cycling icon Mariano Cañardo, who became the leading figure of the Volta a Catalunya with seven victories.

During the Spanish Civil War, the race had its last interruptions in 1937 and 1938, hampering Cañardo's winning streak. After the civil war, World War II broke out in the rest of Europe and, while Catalonia was war-ridden and despite lacking foreign participants, the race was at the peak of its popularity and considered a symbol of Catalan sports culture. In 1945, marking the event's 25th edition, the Volta a Catalunya was exceptionally run over two weeks, before returning to its seven-day format the next year.

Modern era
Over the years, some of cycling's greatest riders have won the race. Miguel Poblet won the Volta twice in the 1950s, Jacques Anquetil in 1967, Eddy Merckx in 1968, Luis Ocaña in 1971, Felice Gimondi in 1972, Francesco Moser in 1978, and Sean Kelly in 1984 and 1986. Miguel Induráin, Spanish cycling icon of the modern era, won the race three times in the early 1990s. Colombian Álvaro Mejía became the first non-European winner in 1993.

From 1941 until 1994, the race was held in September. When UCI revolutionized the international cycling calendar in 1995, the Vuelta a España was awarded the September date and the Volta a Catalunya moved to June on the calendar. The race finished two weeks before the start of the Tour de France and the Volta became the principal preparation race for general classification protagonists. Frenchman Laurent Jalabert won the 1995 edition, preceding his fourth place in that year's Tour de France.

In 1999, 22-year old Spanish rider Manuel Sanroma died as a result of a crash during the second stage of the race. Sanroma, a promising sprinter, was the favourite to win the stage, but fell head-first onto a sidewalk at one kilometre from the finish in Vilanova i la Geltrú. Despite wearing a helmet, he succumbed to his injuries in hospital. The next day, riders decided to neutralize the stage to Barcelona.

World Tour Race
In 2005, the Volta a Catalunya was included in the inaugural UCI Pro Tour and the date was shifted to May to avoid the Tour de Suisse date. The edition was won by Ukrainian Yaroslav Popovych but the move did not prove successful because the new date coincided with the Giro d'Italia.

In 2010 the race moved to late March on the calendar, the slot formerly held by another Catalan stage race, the Setmana Catalana. Joaquim Rodríguez, the foremost Catalan rider of his generation, won the race twice after the date shift. Alberto Contador, winner of the 2011 edition, was later stripped of his win after his positive doping test in the 2010 Tour de France. Italian runner-up Michele Scarponi was retroactively awarded the victory. The 2020 edition was cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Route
Since the race's earlier date on the calendar in late March, the Volta a Catalunya has started in one of the coastal resorts on the Costa Brava with a stage through rolling terrain inland, usually suited for sprinters.

The race reaches the Pyrenees mountains in the middle part of the race, although the mountains are usually less high than before the date shift, due to frequent snowy and cold conditions at high altitude in March. One of the regular climbs in the race is the summit finish to La Molina, an 11.6 km climb with a 4.8% average gradient. The ski resort in Alp takes the peloton deep into the Pyrenees to 1694 m altitude, with the weather often a decisive factor.

The race traditionally finishes with a hilly stage in Barcelona on a circuit, featuring eight trips over the Montjuïc climb and park.

Medals (1911-2023)
Only General Classification results and exclude Stages results.

Jerseys
The leader of the overall general classification receives a white-and-green striped jersey. There are also three other classifications. The winner of the points classification (sprints) wears a white-and-orange striped jersey, a white-and-red striped jersey for the winner of the mountain classification and the jersey of the Catalonia regional cycling team is for the best classified Catalan. There is also a team classification.

title: Volta a Catalunya


text:
Cipher runes

Cipher runes, or cryptic runes, are the cryptographical replacement of the letters of the runic alphabet.

Preservation
The knowledge of cipher runes was best preserved in Iceland, and during the 17th–18th centuries, Icelandic scholars produced several treatises on the subject. The most notable of these is the manuscript Runologia by Jón Ólafsson (1705–1779), which he wrote in Copenhagen (1732–1752). It thoroughly treats numerous cipher runes and runic ciphers, and it is now preserved in the Arnamagnæan Institute in Copenhagen.

Jón Ólafsson's treatise presents the Younger Futhark in the Viking Age order, which means that the m-rune precedes the l-rune. This small detail was of paramount importance for the interpretation of Viking Age cipher runes because in the 13th century the two runes had changed places through the influence of the Latin alphabet where l precedes m. Since the medieval runic calendar used the post-13th-century order, the early runologists of the 17th–18th centuries believed that the l-m order was the original one, and the order of the runes is of vital importance for the interpretation of cipher runes.

Structure of the ciphers
In the runic alphabet, the runes have their special order and are divided into groups. In the Younger Futhark, which has 16 letters, they are divided into three groups. The Icelandic tradition calls the first group (f, u, þ, ã, r and k) "Freyr's ætt", the second group (h, n, i, a and s) "Hagal's ætt" and the third group (t, b, m, l and ʀ) "Tyr's ætt". In order to make the inscription even harder to decipher, Freyr's ætt and Tyr's ætt change places so that group one is group three and vice versa. However, in several cases the ætts are counted in their correct order, and not backwards. There are numerous forms of cipher runes, but they are all based on the principle of giving the number of the ætt and the number of the rune within the ætt.

The tent runes are based on strokes added to the four arms of an X shape: Each X represents two runes and is read clockwise, starting with the top left arm. The strokes on the first arm representing the ætt (row of eight runes: (1) fuþarkgw, (2) hnijæpzs, (3) tbemlŋod), the strokes on the second arm denote the order within that ætt.

The branch runes are similar, the strokes being attached to a vertical stem and branching upwards. Strokes on the left indicate the ætt, and strokes on the right the order within the ætt.

There are variants of these two schemes, such as inverting the numbers (counting backwards the ætts, and the runes within the ætts). Tree runes and hook runes are like branch runes, with the strokes pointing downward diagonally and curving downward, respectively. These may be mixed: in the phrase ek vitki at left, ek is written in straightforward branch runes, but vitki is written with the ætts as hooks and the order as branches.

There are several runestones using such devices of obscuring the inscription, especially found in Orkney.

A comparable system of letter modification is that of the Ogham "scales" recorded in the Ogam Tract.

title: Cipher runes


text:
Talk:War of the Reunions

Bogus Map
The map shown here depicts the extent of the "Spanish Netherlands" between 1545 and 1585,  when Spain controlled almost all of Belgium and (modern) Netherlands except for the Liege bishop.

This map is misleading and wrong in relation to this war in 1683,  which is a long time after the northern Netherlands gained independence from Spain after a long long war,  by the time of this war of Louis XIV against spain,  "spanish netherlands"  was only in the southern part ( Belgium, approximately ).Eregli bob (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:War of the Reunions


text:
Talk:Indochina Wars

Wars of National Liberation

 * Although this term is definitely correct for the Viet Minh war against the French (and arguably, a continuation of it in Vietnam), it is equally arguable that the Vietnamese assertion of control of Laos and Cambodia (whatever the respective pretexts) make this term incorrect for those respective nations. Jkp1187 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vietnamese invaded Cambodia
The Vietnamese invaded Cambodia for imperialistic reasons...see the book "Why Vietnam Invaded Cambodia."
 * Vietnamese invaded Cambodia because the Khmer Rouge attacked Vietnamese villages near the border and massacred ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia. See all other sources except the book you mentioned.--81.100.174.75 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Periodization
The Vietnamese Invasion of Cambodia was not a seperate war but the opening act of the Third Indochina War; this needs to be clarified here and in the article on the Third Indochia War. Cripipper 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is ludicrous. How did the North Vietnamese conduct a war in South Vietnam without conducting a war (through their Pathet Lao proxies) in Laos? How did the North Vietnamese conduct a war in South Vietnam without 1. the acquiescence of Nordom Sihanouk, 2. the creation of the Sihanouk Trail? In what manner was the Cambodian Civil War related to the Vietnam Conflict? To the Laotian Civil War? Was it possible that the three conflicts were interlinked by geography, politico-military history? By ethnic-racial antagonisms? By ideological similarities or differences? Get a grip. Round Two - So the Sino-Vietnamese war was fought in a vacuum? There was absolutely no casus belli for the Chinese to invade the Socialist Republic of Vietnam? Hilarious! RM Gillespie 01:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Second Indochina War Vs. Vietnam War
Although related, the 2IW should encompass the cross border actions undertaken by the US and NVA/NLF between 1955 and 1975 in Laos, Thailand, and Cambodia. Throughout this time period, with and without the cooperation of the governments of the respective countries both the US and NVA/PLF fought each other and locals, esp Montagnards. This doesn't seem to be covered in the Vietnam War article. There was a show on Discovery last night about some of the Ravens, who were FACs in Laos and lived with the Hmong, but various US special forces and CIA were in all three countries throughout the 2IW, as were the NVA/PLF. 69.19.14.29 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) anonymous internet user guy

Fix
The war between Viet Nam and Cambodia is a separate from the war between Viet Nam and China. We should count the Cambodian-Vietnamese War was the 3rd Indochina War and the Sino-Vietnamese War as the 4th Indochina War, just like the Vietnamese article. Kinh Duong Vuong (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The First Indochina War
I feel that the two following paragraphs should be added to the Section titled, The First Indochina War:

During the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, France’s elite paratroopers and Legionnaires were decisively defeated by the Vietminh on the 7th of May 1954, thus ended the 56-day battle into which the French had poured more than 16,000 troops and suffered nearly 1,300 killed and more than 5,000 wounded.

During the more than seven years (from December 1946 to July 1954) that the French had been fighting in Vietnam, French Union Forces (made up of Frenchmen, French Foreign Legionnaires, and French Colonial troops from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Senegal, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) suffered more than 74,000 deaths, of which 20,685 were Frenchmen.

Source: A. T. Lawrence, author of Crucible Vietnam: Memoir of an Infantry Lieutenant (2009 ed.). McFarland. ISBN 0786445173, pp. 16-17. [Footnoted sources: Bernard B. Fall, Hell In A Very Small Place: The Siege of Dien Bien Phu. (Cambridge, Mass: Da Capo Press, 2002); Bernard B. Fall, Street Without Joy. (Mechanicsburg, Penn: Stackpole Books, 1994); and, Micheal Clodfelter, Vietnam in Military Statistics: A History of the Indochina Wars, 1772 – 1991. (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, 1995).] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.197.57.247 (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Laotian Civil War
Hello, all,

I see some difficulties with the present layout of this article. Let me supply a bit of background.

Official American involvement in Southeast Asia began with funding the French effort in Laos as early as 1950. Through the Eisenhower administration, Laos was denominated as the first domino in line. That only began to change in 1961, when Kennedy took office. However, in 1964, under LBJ, the focus shifted to the war in Vietnam because of the North Vietnamese use of the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The focus of history has reflected this change. However, this is scarcely a NPOV; it is unabashedly American.

Moreover, there was ongoing fighting in other regions of Laos than the Trail. Fighting on the Plain of Jars had nothing to do with the Trail and went for over a decade, as the communists tried to overrun Laos. Then there was still a third theater of operations in northwestern Laos, on the Burmese/Lao/Chinese border, with sporadic combat in such places as Namtha. Fourthly, there was also a turbulent political struggle going on in the capitol of Vientiane, with multiple coups and political assassinations. All of these events are peripheral to Vietnam, and have nothing to do with the Vietnam War.

I have written this note to point out several facts:
 * The Vietnam War took place there, in Vietnam; the Second Indochina War included the Laotian Civil War plus the fighting in Cambodia and the communist insurgency in northern Thailand.
 * The Laotian Civil War predated the Vietnam War, and and in large part was fought separately from the Vietnam War. And while the U.S. military fought the Vietnam War, the Laotian Civil War was run by the Central Intelligence Agency.
 * The Second Indochina War, then, consisted of the Laotian Civil War, the Vietnam War, and the Cambodian Civil War.
 * Wikipedia has yet to catch on to this reality, as the present article shows.

It behooves us to keep these realities in mind as we work on this array of articles. Otherwise we are perpetrating a skewed view of history.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indochina Wars


text:
Talk:Italian Wars of 1499–1504

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 12 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JSMoskowitz. Peer reviewers: RenaissanceMan1389, Tylosaurus1248.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Question
I thought that Burgundy was a possession of Philip I of Spain, and that Milan was a possession of The Crown of Aragon rather than both being held by the King of France? Were they disputed titles? MC 17:09, 10th March 2007

 * The historical Duchy of Burgundy (in central France) had actually been seized by the French crown in 1477; what Philip still had was the Burgundian Circle (which was often referred to as Burgundy as well).
 * As far as I know, Milan was never an Aragonese possession; the Duchy eventually became a Spanish one, but that didn't take place until the reign of Charles. Milan became permanently Spanish in 1535, with the death of the last Sforza duke. Kirill Lokshin 18:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian War of 1499–1504. 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/20070128063944/http://www.b17.com/family/lwp/chronology/1501_1600.html to http://www.b17.com/family/lwp/chronology/1501_1600.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) 22:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Italian Wars of 1499–1504


text:
Talk:Italian War of 1494–1495

Wrong Title?
The article describes the war as having ended in 1495. Was the article mistitled then? Should it not be the Italian War of 1494-1495? 75.41.58.113 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 * In this case, it's the text that's incorrect, not the title; while the last major battle was fought in 1495, the fighting did continue sporadically into 1498. Thanks for catching this! Kirill [talk] [prof] 11:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

 * In this case it would be a good idea to include something about the next three years of the war, no? There may not have been any battles but it would be good to write about what did happen. As it is the article only covers two years of a five year war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.188.244 (talk) 07:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Italian War of 1494–98. 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/20150204194510/http://studyingthepast.com/post/16-charles-viiis-italian-war to http://studyingthepast.com/post/16-charles-viiis-italian-war

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) 01:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Victory?
You can retreat, losing all the loot a.d call it a victory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Knights, Squires and Foot Soldiers in Portugal during the Sixteenth-Century Military Revolution, Pedro de Brito, Mediterranean Studies, Vol. 17 (2008), page 129;"This commander's[Gonzalo Fernandex de Cordoba] first encounter with the French at Seminara (June 1495) ran sour, and he withdrew into the guerrilla warfare he had observed the Moors practicing at Granada. Meanwhile, a coalition had been formed by the divided Italian city states, and at the risk of having his lines of communication with France cut, Charles withdrew to the north of Italy. Notwithstanding his victory over the coalesced Italian forces at Fornovo, one week after Seminara.." --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The source cited at footnote 15 to justify the statement, without qualification, that Fornovo was a French victory, is p 56 of The Military Organisation of a Renaissance State Venice c.1400 to 1617 by M E Mallett and J R Hale. That significantly misrepresents what Mallett writes through selectivity. What Mallett writes in full is that "Fornovo was clearly a French victory in the sense that Charles achieved his aim breaking through into Lombardy. But it was not the Italian humiliation that it is sometimes made out to have been. As far as Venice was concerned, and this is clearly indicated by the Senate's instructions to the proveditors, the main aim was to avoid defeat and keep the army intact while administering a shock to the French. The idea that the French army might be destroyed or even prevented from returning home would have appeared wildly optimistic to the contemporary Italian military mentality. Therefore the news of the outcome of the battle was received in Venice with immense relief and rejoicing. Gonzaga and Fortebraccio, himself badly wounded in the battle, were the heroes of the hour."

On pages 57-8 Mallett goes on to show how as a result of Fornovo Venice was able to send an army into the Kingdom of Naples to eject the French garrisons, and to separately intervene in Pisa in order to force Florence to abandon its alliance with France.

Clearly Mallett acknowledges the fact that Fornovo is often regarded as an "Italian humiliation" and it ought to be possible to find other sources which justify the statement of French victory. But if there article is going to cite Mallet it should reflect his clear view that Fornovo was (a) achieved the specific objectives set by the Venetian senate and (b) was regarded as a victory by contemporary Venetians and (c) was a strategic victory for Venice.

Original research and source misrepresentation
This edit is source misrepresentation and original research and should not be allow on this encyclopedia! Typical POV pushing from someone that can not handle facts. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit
This page shows clearly bias(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias)siince you dismiss of the sources YOU DO NOT LIKE. I get you do this because you feel big here contrary to your pathetic life, but you gotta accept True History — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.30.216.217 (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 * So after edit warring your WP:OR into the articles, you issue personal attacks. How typical. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Lol, you whine after you attacked me personally. Typical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.211.180.105 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Italian War of 1494–1495


text:
Talk:Kirby's Dream Land

Screenshots
What would be some good screenshots to put in? KingTT 18:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There's a space in the name!
The country of Popstar is spelled "Dream Land", not "Dreamland". There is a space, and always has been. This may have been explained if Dream Land were in the Japanese games, but there it's known as "Pupupuland", I believe. I'm just not getting where people come up with "Dreamland". To my knowledge, it is never officially used by Nintendo at all.

POV paragraph and unsourced as well
I've removed this paragraph:

"At the time of its release, Kirby's Dream Land showcased some of the best graphic design of any hand-held game, making it a visual masterpiece. It solidified many of the gaming standards commonly associate with platformers, such as stages that culminate in bosses, hidden rooms and passages, power-ups, and secret play options. In addition, despite the game's inherent simplicity and unconventional storyline and characters, it has held up better than most premiere games. Most of the enemies, bosses, levels and music introduced in this game would reappear later in the series."

First sentence is completely unsourced. Some of the "best graphic design of any handheld game"? According to whom is this POV statement sourced? Second sentence: "Solidified many of the gaming standards commonly associated with platformers"? Again, both unsourced and completely wrong. The paragraph goes on to list bosses, hidden rooms, power ups and secret play options? I can think of dozens, if not hundreds of games that had these things before Kirby's Dreamland. Third sentence: "It has held up better than most premire games". According to whom, again? Many, many "premiere games" have held up perfectly well- Metroid, Zelda, Sonic 1, Super Mario Brothers, for instance. The only valid part of the paragraph is "Most of the enemies, bosses, levels and music introduced in this game would reappear later in the series", and I'm not sure how to fit that into the article. Ex-Nintendo Employee 16:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reception sources
Finding reviews seems near impossible, I've been using "Kirby's Dream Land" review -"Kirby's Dream Land 2" search on google but still can't find anything.--The Negotiator 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * From the Gamerankings page I was able to find the portablereview and nintendojo. There's also a spanish review. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacoplane (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I found the spanish one but I don't think you can reference them. From portablereview the review says: Article by: Knives, so it sounds like a user contributed it. I think we can use nintenjo though.--The Negotiator 18:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Knives is a webmaster on the web site for Portable Review. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Portable Review is a tiny site run by something like four teens, with barely any readership. Are you sure it's noteable enough to include as a reference? Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that small; it's acknowledged by Konami (who sends Portable Review review copies and even commented favorably of its quality), LucasArts, Disney Interactive, etc. Additionally, its opinion is taken into account by Game Rankings, and in the absence of better reviews, we have to settle. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Twinkle Popopo?
Ummm... In the article it states several times that the game was originally going to be called "Twinkle Popopo," but in a picture next to one suich claim, a picture of an old article featuring the original Kirby, it reads ティンクル・ポポ, which is "Tinkle Popo." This is also what it says on the Japanese Wikipedia page. Is "Twinkle Popopo" an official English language statement of what the game was going to be called, or is this just a "lost in translation?"--Sotaru 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

 * "Twinkle" makes sense because of its association with "star". I surmise that Nintendo used "Tinkle" only to make it easier for Japanese to pronounce. In Japanese, "twinkle" is even hard to spell! ... But speaking of names, the article mentions "Twinkle Popo" as well as "Twinkle Popopo." Is "Popo" a typopo?  Sicherman (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Assessment
I have looked over the article, and while I believe that it certainly could be a GA, there are a few problems that I want fixed before I can promote this article.

-"It is both the first video game in the Kirby series and is also the debut of the Kirby character" This sentance reads oddly. Putting "Both" and "Is Also" in there seems to create a redundancy.

-The third paragraph in the "Gameplay" section neglects some information. Add that Kirby inhales air in order to fly, and that he is unable to inhale while under water.

-Presentation section is all of 4 sentances. Needs MORE. Try adding information about the game's graphical style.

DocDragon 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass
I have reviewed this article, and found that it contains everything necessary for a GA-quality article.

DocDragon 16:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Lag
This game lags really badly sometimes on my GBA. Is Dream Land really that advanced, or is something wrong with my gameboy? 72.192.55.156 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an advanced game, at least not for now. I have it for GBA too, and it sucks. But it's kinda fun, so I guess that's why everyone likes it so much. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a GBA copy out? I have the original gray cartridge, and it still lags on my GBA. 72.192.55.156 (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * closest you can get to a gba version of this game is nightmare in dreamland or spring breeze in super star ultra, and i think the gba compatability mode may also make it perform worse for some reason but im not sure 216.108.26.35 (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Kirby, a Player's Choice title?
The article says "It was re-released as a Player's Choice title in North America,[13]" and the reference points to an online retailer selling a copy of Kirby's Dream Land with no indication it is a Player's Choice game. I can find no indication, outside of Wikipedia, that it was ever a million+ seller. No articles or box art with the Player's Choice badge yielded themselves in my search. Perhaps Nintendo has a published "Greatest Hits" list or something, otherwise I think this should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.182.43 (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, it DID once feature a Player's Choice box art. I'll have to do some digging again. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kirby's Dream Land. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100619092845/http://nindb.net/series/kirby.html to http://www.nindb.net/series/kirby.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another review
Found another (short) review from a 1995 mag:   czar  19:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirby's Dream Land. 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/20060716121838/http://www.phdream.com/dl/ssbmorch.php to http://www.phdream.com/dl/ssbmorch.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215200145/http://kirby.classicgaming.gamespy.com/info/np/ to http://kirby.classicgaming.gamespy.com/info/np/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kirby's Dream Land. 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://www.webcitation.org/6DsDAcH7J?url=http://www.1up.com/features/complete-kirby to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3170113
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326040846/http://www.1up.com/do/gameOverview?cId=3134427 to http://www.1up.com/do/gameOverview?cId=3134427

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) 05:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Developer Channel
FYI- Masahiro Sakurai started a YouTube Channel about game development: https://www.youtube.com/c/sora_sakurai_en

He's done a video on Kirby's Dream Land already (link at the top of the talk page in the Reference Suggestions box) and has briefly mentioned it in another. This would be a good resource to expand the development section of the page. Happy editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC))

"Hoshi no Kābī" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hoshi_no_K%C4%81b%C4%AB&redirect=no Hoshi no Kābī] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  cogsan (nag me)  (stalk me) 20:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kirby's Dream Land


text:
Talk:War of the League of Cognac

Why was the Pope "shocked" at the defeat of Francis I in the Italian Wars?
He'd been on the other side. Hadn't the Pope wanted to win? Hadn't the alliance of Francis I and Suleimain been fairly consequential, too? JoshNarins (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:War of the League of Cognac


text:
Talk:Lapland War

Soviet contribution
The Soviets weren't maybe "supposed to" contribute, but they actually did in Operation Tanne Ost. So the Soviet Union is a combatant. (Or if we want to discuss wars that don't technically exist, maybe the Korea U.N. Police Action or Vietnam U.S. Advisory Operation...) --vuo (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That was the first battle of the war, and the Soviets and the Finns happened to fight the Germans in the same area. Apart from that one incident, the Finns took on the Germans alone, without Soviet air support or actually any kind of support. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Other war infoboxes include participants that contributed very little. While personally, I would generally prefer to leave those out, the precedence is to include them, usually with an explanation, such as "minor air support in Operation Tanne Ost only" or some such. --A D Monroe III(talk)  18:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The only question is whether Tanne Ost was an overlap between two different wars. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Even if an "overlap", that just means it would be also included in additional infoboxes, not excluded from this one.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  19:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The point is that the Lapland War is separate from the Soviet "Great Patriotic War", but were fought in overlapping theatres. Finland and the Soviet Union happened to fight the Germans at the same time on a single occasion at the beginning of the war, and afterwards the Finns were completely on their own. Presenting the Soviet Union as a combatant will imply that the Soviets intervened in this conflict in support of Finland, which is inaccurate. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't outdent for no reason; see WP:THREAD; thanks.
 * None of this is a reason for exclusion. Things that happened by chance can still be noteworthy, like the Black Plague.  I agree that Russia should not be included as an equal combatant with Finland, per UNDUE.  But including them with an explanation of their limited, but actual, involvement is fine, per DUE.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  16:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Provided we include (only Operation Tanne Ost), I guess it's not harmful to the article. Though I still don't think the fact that the Finnish and Russian war threatres overlapped in a single instance makes the USSR a combatant in any way shape or form. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're in agreement then. My suggestion was something like minor air support in Operation Tanne Ost only, since their involvement in Tanne Ost was limited itself.  If there are no objections after a couple of days, I'll add the Russians back with that qualifying note added -- unless someone beats me to it.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  21:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Beat you to it? Challenge accepted ;) Cheers! --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Well, then all that's left is for me to...
 * out-outdent you! ;) --A D Monroe III(talk)  15:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

,, : Dear Sirs, I actually ended up phrasing the Soviet involvement into a note the following way during GAN: "The USSR provided air support in Operation Tanne Ost to Finland and crossed into Finnish soil while following the withdrawing Wehrmacht and during the Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive." IMO, it's a NPOV stance purely on facts and not commenting on whether the USSR was or was not actually/legally involved in the war. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is against consensus. Facts are they were involved, actually.  Yes, it was minor, but there's no POV stance to make on their involvement.  GAN doesn't justify this.   Discuss, please.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  19:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Open up to discussion again then (wee infobox debate)! It looks to me that the main friction point was if the USSR was a belligerent in the war or not. I don't really care about this simplistic view or if the USSR is included in the infobox at all. But the mentions of Soviet forces entering Finland and pursuing Germans cannot really be excluded from prose (even Finnish historiography talk about it openly in Lapland War-related material). So in that sense, "minor support in Tanne Ost only" is too close to cherrypicking if a reader happens to read the prose. I would go for either "USSR in infobox with mentions of involvement (i.e. the version I just amended to)" or "exclude USSR from infobox." I don't think even consensus can trump RS statements! Or in other words, one would have to find an RS stating that Soviet involvement was Tanne Ost only. Manelolo (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Meh scratch that, I'm personally quite happy as it is and better to focus energy on content creation (I reverted it to the consensus form earlier today). Cheerio! Manelolo (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Tent Usage
"[T]he Finns who, unlike the Germans, always carried tents with them and did not require any existing shelter."

I know this is a very minor thing, but wrong is wrong. It should be noted that the standard German gear did, in fact, include a tent in the form of the zeltbahn tent half. This item was a poncho/camouflage/tent item all in one. I doubt, however, that it was sufficient for the cold weather of the region while the Finn tents probably were better suited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.18.190 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Amended by deleting. Manelolo (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lapland War. 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/20061027043914/http://www.rajajoki.com/lapland.htm to http://www.rajajoki.com/lapland.htm

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) 18:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive of uncited material

 * Finnish forces, which included the 3rd, 6th, and 11th divisions, the Armoured Division as well as the 15th and Border Jaeger brigades, were moved to face the Germans.
 * Sailors on Finnish ships in German-held ports, including Norway, were interned, and German submarines sank several Finnish civilian vessels. German submarines also had some success against Finnish military vessels, including the sinking of the minelayer Louhi. One important consequence of the Finnish armistice with the Soviet Union was that Soviet naval forces could now circumvent German naval mine barriers on the Gulf of Finland by using the Finnish coastal seaways. This allowed Soviet submarines now based in the Finnish Archipelago to gain access to the German shipping in the southern Baltic Sea.
 * The Finns deployed their 3rd Division, 11th Division, and 15th Brigade to the coastal area, the 6th and the Armoured divisions to Pudasjärvi, and the Border Jaeger Brigade to the eastern part of the country.
 * Finnish forces began pursuing the Germans. The Finnish 11th Division advanced north from Tornio on the road running along the Torne River while the 3rd Division marched from Kemi towards Rovaniemi. After the 6th and the Armoured divisions linked up at Pudasjärvi, they advanced northward, first towards Ranua and then to Rovaniemi. The Border Jaeger Brigade moved north along the eastern border, depositing border guards as it advanced. Due to the destruction of the road network the Finns were forced to use combat troops for repair work; at times, for example, the entire 15th Brigade was committed to road construction. Finnish forces advancing from Kemi towards Rovaniemi did not see any real action, as Finnish troops on foot were not able to keep up with withdrawing motorized German units; however, on the road leading from Ranua towards Rovaniemi there were several small battles, first at Ylimaa, then Kivitaival, then Rovaniemi. North of Rovaniemi the Finns encountered heavily fortified German schutzwall positions at Tankavaara. On the road running along the Torne and Muonio rivers, the German withdrawal went so smoothly that there was no fighting until the Finnish 11th Division reached the village of Muonio.
 * In their retreat the German forces under General Lothar Rendulic devastated large areas of northern Finland with scorched earth tactics. As a result, some 40–47% of the dwellings in the area were destroyed, and the provincial capital of Rovaniemi was burned to the ground, as were the villages of Savukoski and Enontekiö. Two-thirds of the buildings in the main villages of Sodankylä, Muonio, Kolari, Salla and Pello were demolished, 675 bridges were blown up, all main roads were mined, and 3,700 km of telephone lines were destroyed.
 * In addition to the property losses, estimated as equivalent to about US $300 million in 1945 dollars (US$ 0 billion in 2024), about 100,000 inhabitants became refugees, a situation that added to the problems of postwar reconstruction. After the war the Allies convicted Rendulic of war crimes, and he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, although charges concerning the devastation of Lapland were dropped. He was released after six years.
 * With the exception of the inhabitants of the Tornio area, most of the civilian population of Lapland (totaling some 168,000 people) was evacuated to Sweden and southern Finland. The evacuation was carried out as a cooperative effort between the German military and Finnish authorities prior to the start of hostilities.
 * The extensive German land mines caused civilian casualties for decades after the war, and almost 100 personnel were killed during demining operations.

title: Talk:Lapland War


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5ideways

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Gareth Hughes 21:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

5ideways
commercial vanity and non-notable Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. - Gator1 18:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is basically advertising — and is already mentioned in the author's article K. Sandra Fuhr (which should probably also be AfD'd). Given that the article doesn't even know which day of the week the comic will be published on, it's not too surprising that Alexa does not register a traffic rank at all — there are approximately 8 billion more notable websites than this. -Splash talk 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the advertising. -- Captain Disdain 00:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not create the article for advertising purposes, K. Sandra Fuhr only recently unveiled the project, which is why Alexa doesn't register the page, as it's 3 days old. My intent in creating it was the same as that for any other author, to credit their works.  If you all feel that it would be better served to list this and ANY other project that Ms. Fuhr has created on the web, I don't object to it.  I do re-iterate, this was not created as an advertisement.  If it is the consensus to delete, I vote instead that this and any other pages for Ms. Fuhr's creations be made into one page with her biography, as I've seen with many other authors. Bo-Lingua 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Comics have to be notable to be listed here.  As this comic is 3 days old, I'm pretty sure it's not yet notable.  In the future, when it is notable, it may be relisted.  I've copied the articles to Comixpedia.org --Tedzsee 00:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I apologize for my ignorance of criterion.  As author of the article, and that the vote seems unanimous, delete it.  Thank you, Tedzee for pulling it to Comixpedia, and maybe it will return here, eventually.  Thanks, all. Bo-Lingua 01:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umpire (volleyball)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE.  Rob e  rt  15:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Umpire (volleyball)
There is no such thing and the page has very little content. The volleyball officials are the first and second referee, and two or four line judges; see the rules at http://www.fivb.org/EN/Volleyball/Rules/Rules.htm. However, Volleyball lacks a section about officials, so the little content that exists could be moved there instead. - Magnus Holmgren  (I'll create an account momentarily)
 * Delete. Volleyball does not have umpires, and so I do not see how any of the content here can be ported elsewhere. The second sentence of the article is a statement of the obvious regarding any refereeing in any endeavour and has no particular bearing on volleyball. The first is factually incorrect and, even though we're not paper, we don't collect factually incorrect information. If Volleyball needs an "officials" section, that's fine, but it should not come from this article. -Splash talk 20:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Captain Disdain 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (per nomination (i've created an account now)) -- Magnus Holmgren 13:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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


text: File:Mumbai KALWA.gif

title: File:Mumbai KALWA.gif


text: File:Chicago Defender July 31 1948.jpg

title: File:Chicago Defender July 31 1948.jpg


text:
Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1897)

Title
The 1919-22 events can be described as a Greco-Turkish War because the two factions were the Kingdom of Greece and the Turkish National Movement, but the factions in this war were the Kingdom of Greece and the Ottoman Empire, so shouldn't this be titled Greco-Ottoman War (1897)?-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 10:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 * It is a common name issue: most wars the Ottomans were in are commonly called "X-Turkish War", like the Russo-Turkish Wars. The difference between "Greco-Turkish War" and "Greco-Ottoman War" is overwhelming if you check Google Books. Constantine  ✍  13:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
I notice the casualty numbers seem to keep being deleted, even when sourced. Why?

For instance the last time they were up they were sourced In Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015, 4th ed. By Micheal Clodfelter. The numbers were clearly listed on pages 196 and 197. If there is no dispute will go ahead a fix. - DannyUK190 4:52 PM, 1 August (UTC)

title: Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1897)


text:
Talk:Lamian War

"Macedonians and Greeks"
The article, indirectly, keeps calling the Macedonians non Greeks, since it doesn't include them in the Greeks, which is completely biased and not historically correct. I don't know why, but Wikipedia has this obsession to make the Macedonians non Greeks and to give the Macedonia identity to Slavic people. Please have some dignity. There are people out there who know history. Onoufrios d (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What you are referring to is a separate issue from how historians distinguish between the classical Greek people of 'mainland' Greece and their Macedonian cousins to the north, who spoke a Greek dialect that was considered barbarous by the southern Greeks of antiquity. There was enmity between the classical Greek peoples and their Macedonian conquerors that lasted for centuries - right up through the Roman conquests. Don't get too wound up over this. -HammerFilmFan
 * By the time I read this article (i.e. the date of this post), the only remaining text to which the complaint could seem to apply is "disband the Greek alliance against Macedonia". If that were to be changed to "disband the alliance of anti-Macedonian Greeks against Macedonia", then I think maybe all of the distinction between "Macedonians" and "Greeks" (which would imply that Macedonians weren't Greeks) would be rectified.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Math question on status of women
As of the date of this post the article contains the text ", whereby only the 9,000 richest citizens were left in exclusive possession of the city.[10] The 12,000 poorest men, or 60% of the entire citizenship, were permanently exiled". If the 12,000 poorest men were 60% of the population, then 1/6th of that (2,000 men) is 10% of the population, and ten times that (100%) would be20,000 men. Of 20,000 men, if 12,000 were exiled, that leaves 8,000 men. So if the 9,000 richest citizens remained, 1,000 of them were women, right? Only 8,000 MEN were left, and 8,000 MEN can't be the same as "the 9,000 richest citizens". Well, that's fine if the 9,000 richest citizens included 1,000 women, but my understanding of life in ancient Greece is that only in Sparta could women become wealthy.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

title: Talk:Lamian War


text: Talk:Chremonidean War

title: Talk:Chremonidean War


text:
Talk:Corinthian War

Cite template change
I have reverted the insertion of a cite book template for the first reference to the "Corinthian War" article in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. I did this because
 * 1) Simon Hornblower is the editor, not the author, of the OCD, and
 * 2) the reference with the template inserted doesn't list the specific article in the book that is being cited.

I don't know if there is an appropriate template for citing a work like the OCD; if so, there would be no harm in using that, but cite book led to a rather misleading reference. --RobthTalk 14:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5th century
The featured article blurb omits the "bc" after 5th century when refering to the Athenian Empire, it looks a little confusing. L0b0t 12:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
I understand that the standard for spelling of Greek place names currently is to use "k" in place of "c," as it is a hard sound. On that note, however, why is it not spelled "Korinth," then? I ask not to be clever, but out of a genuine curiousity. --Raulpascal 18:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's changed actually; it was at one time the standard to use a "k"--which makes sense, as the Greek letter being transliterated is "Κ" (kappa). This changed at some point in the twentieth century, however, presumably because "k" is a very awkward letter in English, and spellings like "Corinth" are now universally used. --RobthTalk 03:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The picture is wrong
That depicts the Macedonian phalanx, not the classical Greek phalanx used during the war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 22:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Xenophon?
It seems like most of this article relies upon Xenophon for its narrative. It's a primary source, so doesn't that constitute Original Research? Seeing as this is a featured article, is there some sort of exception in this case which allows extensive reliance upon a primary source? Chamboz (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Xenophon is the chief historical narrative for Greek history at this time; the only other narrative would be the Hellenica Oxyrhynchia, which only covers a tiny slice of the period. Inscriptions, maybe some papyri, & incidental mentions in poems & such complete the remainder of the primary sources. It would help this article to have a section discussing the primary sources, especially since this is rated a "Featured Article". -- llywrch (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what is trying to say is that, per WP:PRIMARY, we are not supposed to use primary sources unless we have secondary sources interpreting them, because relying exclusively on primary sources almost always results in WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. To answer that question, this article became a "Featured Article" back in 2006 when our standards for what could become a "Featured Article" were far, far more relaxed than they are today. Virtually all our other Featured Articles relating to classical Greece, including Pericles, Aspasia, Alcibiades, Epaminondas, Demosthenes, and no doubt plenty of others, all share this exact same fault. I doubt any of them would pass FAC if they were put forth as candidates today, which is quite sad because they are actually all very well-written, well-illustrated, and comprehensive and, apart from this one flaw that they all share, they are all perfectly fine Featured Articles. --Katolophyromai (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I knew that, ; I had come here from the list of FAC needing review. ;-) My comment was also partly addressed to whomever came along to perform a formal review, or decided to undertake the responsibility of revising this article to meet FA standards. (I don't know enough about ancient Greek historiography to undertake this revision myself.) -- llywrch (talk) 14:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Cite EB1911
@ User:Aza24 at 02:55, 28 September 2020 you made an edit to the article (diff) in which you added an article title to EB1911. If the text of the EB1911 article is not copied into the Wikipedia article please use rather than  so that the Wikipedia article is added to the correct maintenance categories. I have checked index Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 7:2 and can not find the article "Corinthian War". Please can you add the correct EB article name (along with the volume and page number so it is a full citation)? -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * my edit was solely to remove the harv error that the citation created by using sfn but not referencing something in the bibliography. I have no idea what the original intention of whoever first put it there was so I'm afraid I can't be much help here. In any case, as a featured article, this should ideally be sourcing references higher quality than Britannica 1911, in fact, I wonder if the reference is even needed since there's another one in the same place? Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @User:Aza24 the tool WikiBlame is very useful in answering the question "" because it makes it easy to identify the editor and ask them and so fix errors like this. -- PBS (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

 * The reference was added by user:पाटलिपुत्र at 11:26, 9 March 2019 (diff) usually such short hanging citations are caused by an internal copy from another Wikipedia article (often without the correct copyright notice in the edit history) see Copying within Wikipedia. Using the text string "which were returned to the Athenians" I identified this as text copied from the Wikipedia article Antalcidas as of (Revision on 4 August 2017)

 * The full citation given in the Wikipedia article is:

 * That EB page contains the text "all other Greek cities—so far as they were not under Persian rule—were to be independent, except Lemnos, Imbros and Scyros, which were to belong, as formerly, to the Athenians." So the text in this article also needs the full EB attribution
 * @user:पाटलिपुत्र please read Copying within Wikipedia, in particular "".
 * -- PBS (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review
This article promoted to FA in 2006 is really not up to FA standards anymore and should be delisted. Several passages are just paraphrasing Xenophon, who was strongly pro-Spartan. Very important sources are missing (Hamilton 1979, Cartledge 1979 & 1987, Robin Seager in the Cambridge Ancient History 6, among many others). T8612 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:SANDWICH corrected, uncited text. It appears that this article is not watched; the main contributor has not edited for 10 years. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding to WP:FARGIVEN Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Corinthian War


text:
Talk:Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660)

British-Spanish relations
British-Spanish relations is the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight. This will no doubt be of interest to some people who have this page on their watchlists. Secretlondon 13:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that by this point England was described as under the Cromwellian Protectorate, no longer referred to as Commonwealth in the strictest sense...

causes
This is written as if we know that Cromwell just decided on his own to enter a major war for only one reason. Even if that's true I can't imagine how it would be possible to know it unless Cromwell said something in public like, "I got us into the war entirely on my own initiative and only to rob the Spanish colonies." Maybe someone better at writing than I am could rephrase it to acknowledge that different people in England could have different motives for the war and one person could have more than one motive at the same time.

Abu America (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell actually discussed his motivations pretty candidly and at length with his Council of State prior to getting involved. See The Clarke Papers edited by C.H. Firth in the Royal Historical Society's published manuscripts. Basically, he felt that war with either Spain or France was inevitable, and that the two nations needed to be kept from allying with each other at all costs. Catholic Spain was a greater enemy to Protestantism than France, and fighting against Spain would theoretically pay for itself, especially if the Plate Fleet was captured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.250.20 (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Result of war
There does not seem to be a clear victor in this war. And the editors involved in that section need to stop edit warring with constant reverts see: WP:3RR and WP:RV. Use this talk page to come to a consensus based on sources. Include direct quotations to support references to contended conclusions not just page numbers.Tttom1 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * I concur; I have made it clear from sources that I have used. I quote Copper: Her (England's) achievement had altered the balance of power in Europe and was part of the process whereby power was being concentrated in North West Europe at the expense of the Iberian and Mediterranean states clearly reads at least with the word achievement'' as being a Strategic English victory. I would like to see what sources explains for Spain's achievements in the war. Bruich (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Edit warring needs to be stopped whether you think you are right or not. I see from your other contributions that you are violating the 3 revert rule in several articles where another editor has disagreed with you.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as info box results here: Your quote does not state a 'victory' but achievement in a general sense and would need to be explained further, precluding its use in the info box. the Rodger in Command doesn't agrree: p.28, "In strategic terms, a largely unsuccessful war pushed Cromwell towards France." He goes on to explain on p.28-29 that England's gains were meagre and temporary while their costs were bankrupting the state. The goal of the nation (Cromwell and the army in this case), at the time, must be considered and there is a religious aspect here as well. The policy in Military Hist new info box is that if the result is not clear, it should be left blank or referred to the aftermath or result section of the article where the differing questions of the result can be expressed fully.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Spain had long been war weary, exhausted and wracked by internal division, its fleets rundown. Cromwell is the little thug who sees his chance to put the boot into somebody who's already down and then crow about it. To blow it up into England tilting the balance of power or causing the war to turn sour for the Spanish, long after it had done so, is misleading nonsense. In the context of international realpolitic one cannot fault Cromwell for seizing the opportunity. But it had been obvious, long before his involvement, during the last years of the 30 years war and throughout the Franco-Spanish war 1635-1659 that Spain was a power on the slide. Does anybody really think that if Cromwell hadn't become involved that the course of history at that stage would have been much different? LOL! Provocateur (talk)

Israel pg.312?
That sound like a petty excuse for a proud Spanish person to try and deny a defeat in a war, why would a book with the headings israel, focus on a war between two irrelevant countries battling in the Caribbeans, there's more references saying a English victory than indecisive, we have to put up with Spain saying the Anglo-Spanish war in the 1500s was favorable to Spain, when it was pretty much indecisive, why don't the people on here just admit that it was an English victory, the Same user by the name of El Buffon has been doing nothing on Wikipedia but Editing English victories as Indecisive, I once went into an edit war with him on the siege of Gibraltar 1727, were he kept erasing British victory and putting called of by Spain, I think it's best this man be blocked and his account suspended, he clearly has Anglophobic feelings86.186.3.245 (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Could sound like anything, but what it is - is edit warring and not confined to a one particular editor. Wk policy is: don't edit war. Milhist policy is: controversial results should be left blank in info box and the different views expressed in the body of the article, with sources. By the way, info box shows France and England allied and my recollection is France makes out pretty good in this war, much better than England or Spain, but whatever the case, France should be included in any results so that it doesn't sound too overtly anglophile.Tttom1 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 * The policy in Military Hist new info box is that if the result is not clear, it should be left blank or referred to the aftermath or result section of the article where the differing questions of the result can be expressed fully.Tttom1 (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC) It has been agreed on the highest level, thus I think it's pointless to give undue weight to a claim of "victory" when the only source which claim in an explicit way such outcome makes the caveat that this victory was "costly". The other sources use the word "success" quite more ambiguous and generally refering to specific achievements during the war, not to the war itself.--Darius (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Success Achievement victory are all enough to say that it was a victory whether it is costly or not. If so then it could be called 'costly' victory or partial. Let's not forget that Jamaica, (despite Western Design failure) Dunkirk, Mardyke were all given to England. Also that the war didn't officially end until 1670 when the treaty of Madrid was signed. If so then the infobox should be left blank as there seems to be a conflict of interest involved.Foob (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * As such it seems that the raids by Christopher Myngs and Henry Morgan should be included in the infobox & campaignbox since they were given letters of marque by the then governors of Jamaica Edward D'Oyley and Thomas Modyford covertly approved by King Charles II Foob (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Partially agreed. We should left the the infobox blank because conflict of sources (not our own opinions:)). Certainly, Myngs and Morgan raids should be included, definitively. My concerns with the word 'victory' is not about synonyms, it's because a majority of (cited) sources claims partial or circumstantials "successes", while pointing out to the raising (or resurgence) of England as a major naval power. I will remove both results entries. leaving only the territorials gains made by England. Do you thinks it's OK now?. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Already done, happy editing ;).--Darius (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Agreed! Indeed, sorry I just don't like untidy infoboxes. If you can contribute; feel free, as I know little about it myself and this is unknown territory for me and it is interesting history. Regards Foob (talk) 19:50 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Thank you, Foob. If you have any doubts regarding WP, feel free to ask me. Cheers. Darius (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

How to Claim Three Battles in One
Corrected the claim that Blake's destruction of the "Spanish West Indian Fleet" and his destruction of the convoy at Santa Cruz were seperate events - repeated here three times. The "Spanish West Indian Fleet" was a convoy, or so called "treasure fleet" of heavily armed merchant vessels. Obviously previous editors thought it was a fleet of warships patrolling the West Indies and seperate from the convoy destroyed in the Canary Islands. The result, a victory claimed for Blake in West Indian waters against the "Spanish West Indian Fleet" and two claimed in "European waters", including one at Santa Cruz. (Can Santa Cruz in the Canaries really be called "European waters"?)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ  21  01:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Spanish War (1654–60) → Anglo-Spanish War (1655–60) – This war began in 1655. The attacks on Santo Domingo and Jamaica, both in 1655, provoked the war. No actions were fought in 1654. There is no reference to 1654 that I can see. See |here for more. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC). King Philip V of Spain (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed. Red Slash 16:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The expedition began in December 1654 and many sources do date the beginning of the war to 1654, when the "Western Design" was put into effect. Western Design redirects here. Srnec (talk) 18:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Since war had not been declared, the beginning of the war should be when the English actually attacked the Spanish, not when they left England. Also, please list the sources that you say do date the beginning to 1654. Thanks King Philip V of Spain (talk) 16:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This source says 1654–59. Did any action occur in 1660 before the peace treaty? Srnec (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of, though since the peace treaty had not been signed (and therefore the war was not officially over yet), there must have been minor naval actions and privateer attacks. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What happened in jamaica in 1656
in England 162.216.161.34 (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Anglo-Spanish War (1654–1660)