text:
Talk:Rosemary Tonks

Andrew Motioin
Comment from Andrew Motion, published in The Times, 30 October, 2004

 * Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been trying to find out for years ... according to some people she became a Sufi. Others say she entered a closed order.

 * Others imagine her footloose and anonymous, travelling the wide world. In any event, no trace of her seems to survive - apart from the writing she left behind.

Poetlister 19:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I note that debate on the question of disappearance (or otherwise) has ceased. Can anybody comment on the name of her husband?  Did she have children?  What was the name of the purportedly Christian, sometimes quoted "sect" that she joined? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.141.236.16 (talk • contribs).

Possible answer
I did the last Dictionary of Literary Biography entry on Rosemary Tonks, and I can tell you that there is no public record of her after 1984, which is the year that she stopped contributing information to Writer's Directories. I looked everywhere for a trace of her, but I didn't find anything. I don't think that she "disappeared" since there is no evidence of that either. I'd say that she simply stopped writing and stopped being a writer, given the evidence available. One article speculates that her spiritual journey caused her silence and so I made use of that, but there is no direct evidence that this is how Tonks felt, other than a passage about her growing disillusionment in her last novel, The Halt During the Chase. Tonks' precise reasons for withdrawing from the public world remain known only to herself.

Jrak 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. I think the best way to proceed would be to state the facts exactly as we have them -- she stopped writing (or at least publishing), stopped contributing to directories, and various people in the literary world have tried to track her down but failed -- without jumping to conclusions about her fate or speculating about her motives. What does everyone else think? Perodicticus 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Googled and UK search engine shows no mention of Tonks after Novenber 1973. Is she really missing? Only found info that her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career early. She may have just went in private life and her fan base lost track of her.-  Dak ota
 * Read my quote from the Poet Laureate. He surely has better connections in the literary world than most people, yet he says that he has found no trace of her after several years of asking. - Poetlister 08:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In the early 1970s, she became involved with a fundamentalist Christian sect and disappeared
 * This seems to suggest her disappearance (if that is indeed what it is) is connected to her membership of this sect. Is that the case?  Where is the evidence for that connection?  Has she ever been reported to police as a missing person?  Have any official searches been made for her?   JackofOz 08:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with DakotaKahn and JackofOz. There is no evidence that Tonks "disappeared" in the way that most people would interpret that term. She simply seems to have chosen to stay out of the limelight. I've edited the article to reflect this. Anyone who wants to restore the claim that she "disappeared" should provide actual documentation of this, like a missing-persons report. (The fact that Andrew Motion was unable to track her down proves nothing except that she didn't want him contacting her -- I wouldn't either!) Perodicticus 12:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have quoted a source that passes WP:RS, namely an article in The Times, that said she disappeared. I have quoted another source (the external link) that says "her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career short in the early 1970s". Wikipedia proceeds by quoting reliable sources. Anything else, like speculating about her attitude to the Poet Laureate, violates WP:NOR.--Poetlister 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your "reliable sources" do not say what you think they say. One of them states that she stopped writing, which is not the same as "disappearing." The other says that a particular person was unable to track her down. As I said, this could mean simply that she wished to avoid publicity or did not want to be contacted by this particular individual. I can find no evidence that she has ever been reported missing to police or that her family have expressed concern about her whereabouts, which are the criteria one would normally use for declaring a person "disappeared." I don't have time to get into a revert war with you; however, since three people have now expressed doubt about the "disappeared" claim, I'm tagging this article as disputed until consensus can be reached. Perodicticus 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we say something like "nothing is publicly known about her life after that time"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be a sensible option (though it did get reverted last time I tried it). Perodicticus 10:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that it is a good idea, provided a reputable source says it. Otherwise, it would violate WP:NOR.--Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What the sources say
I give the relevant texts below. Note that we have two sources that she disappeared - not just the Poet Laureate but also the popular poetry anthology "Being Alive". On the other hand, no evidence whatsoever has been produced that she has not disappeared. I quite agree that the article should say no more than these reliable sources do. I shal ensure that it does, and remove the "disputed" tag.--Poetlister 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

 * The Times (London); Oct 30, 2004; Andrew Motion, A S Byatt, Shirley Mansion, David Baddiel, Saffron Burrows; p. 8

 * The Staying Alive anthology became one of Britain's most popular poetry books, selling more than 76,000 copies. Now a sequel, Being Alive, is about to hit the shelves. We asked some admirers to pick their favourites

 * ANDREW MOTION

 * The best thing we can say about the index to a poetry anthology is that it's reliable. But the index to Being Alive does more than that: it quietly advertises one of the mysteries of late 20th- century poetry -by putting, after the name of the contributor Rosemary Tonks, "b. London, 1932: disappeared 1970s".

 * Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been tying to find out for years. She published some fiction and two collections of poems during the late-middle of the century, lived in Hampstead for a while, then...Well, according to some people she became a Sufi. Others say she entered a closed order.

 * Others imagine her footloose and anonymous, travelling the wide world. In any event, no trace of her seems to survive -apart from the writing she left behind.

 * It's a bewitching story, and seems all the more fascinating for the challenge it makes to our cult of celebrity. Not only that: the poems are seriously interesting, too -often Frenchified and/or fruity, hectic, and with a strangely irritable eroticism.

 * Story of a Hotel Room is a good example. If enough editors put her in their anthologies a publisher might re-issue her collected works. It would be worth it: she's a distinctive and authentic voice. They might even track her down -if she's still alive, and willing to be found again.

 * Andrew Motion is the Poet Laureate. His novel The Invention of Dr Cake is published by Faber

--- Rosemary Tonks was a poet of considerable innovation and originality, until her conversion to fundamentalist Christianity stopped her writing career short in the early 1970s.
 * I'm sorry, but dispute tags should not be removed until consensus has been reached. Please remember that this article is not your private property.
 * At any rate, now that I have read the pieces you quote above, I am more convinced than ever that they do NOT prove what you claim they prove (views from other editors on this point would be welcome). In fact, Motion's article actually seems to support what I have been saying -- that Tonks has simply chosen to live in obscurity. He certainly doesn't say anything to make me think she fits the criteria for Category:Disappeared people --"Category for people who went missing and whose subsequent fate is a mystery."
 * Using the term "disappeared" to describe Tonks' post-literary life seems highly misleading to me (do we say T.E. Lawrence "disappeared" when he changed his name and joined the RAF?), and there appear to be at least four other editors who agree with me. As for your statement that "no evidence whatsoever has been produced that she has not disappeared," that is because one cannot prove a negative. The onus is on you to prove that she has disappeared; otherwise, we are entitled to assume she hasn't. Perodicticus 11:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely we have to take what Motion says, not what we think he ought to have said. Motion says that she disappeared and this is "one of the mysteries of late 20th-century poetry". It is an utterly different case from T. E. Lawrence; plenty of people knew were he was and what he was doing. I am not asking anyone to prove a negative. It would be quite possible to prove that she has not disappeared - find some evidence of her whereabouts or activities after 1984. I have proved that she has disappeared; I have produced two reliable sources that say so. The onus is thus on others to prove that she hasn't, by showing where she has been since 1984.--Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible compromise?
Poetlister, as you seem very attached to the word "disappeared," I would like to suggest that the article be changed to read "disappeared from the public eye" or "from the literary scene." This would keep the notion of "disappearance" without misleading the reader as to the nature of the disappearance. Would this be acceptable to you? Perodicticus 11:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I quite agree that it is a good idea, provided a reputable source says it. Otherwise, it would violate WP:NOR.  "Disappeared" isn't my word - it's what the sources say. --Poetlister 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I presume we don't have any sources talking of unsolved police cases, or stating that she is officially a "missing person"? In this case, it is probably reasonably to interpret "disappeared" as "disappeared from the public eye" and it would also be reasonable to clarify the article text to reflect this.  To my mind this would not constitute original research.  To further clarify we could include in a footnote the exact text which simply uses the word "disappeared".  Does this sound ok?? Stumps 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've had a closer look at the article and it seems we are close to this, with the detailed footnotes already there. My interpretation of the sources is that she became "untraceable". I think the word "disappeared" has too many interpretations.  Am I right in thinking there is only one primary source for this information, i.e. the contributor's note in the anthology?? Has anybody tried to contact the editor of the anthology and ask what the original source for this information is?? Stumps 10:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there are two independent sources - the anthology and Andrew Motion's own enquiries. How about 'she disappeared so completely from the public view that even the Poet Laureate, Andrew Motion, has been unable to find any information about her whereabouts or activities and has described her disappearance as a mystery.' - Poetlister 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no earthly need to insist on police records to prove disappearance. Is anyone suggesting that Ambrose Bierce didn't disappear?  I'd say Poetlister is bending over backwards to make everyone happy.  Let's accept what she says and be done with it.--Brownlee 21:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've taken note of all the above and discussed with a few other people. As a resi#ult, I've been able to expand the article quite a bit. Is everyone happy now?--Poetlister 17:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's excellent. Good work! Perodicticus 21:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Blog reference
Never heard of Rosemary Tonks before today, but the mystery is intriguing. A very quick look at Google brought up a June 16, 2006 blog entry by poetry editor Nate Dorward, which may or may not be reliable, depending on your tolerance for blog entries. The entry states:

 * "She (Tonks) was still alive circa 2000 when Keith Tuma & I were securing permissions for the selections in the Anthology of 20th-Century British and Irish Poetry. We didn’t correspond directly but were given to understand by the literary agent that she was indeed still kicking. I haven’t seen an obit since then, so think she’s still around."

Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry edited by Keith Tuma does exist according to Amazon, so somehow they got permission to use Tonks' poetry in the 2001 book. Or at least nobody objected when the poems were used. The collection claims the following about Tonks on page xxxiii:

 * "Reprinted by permission of the author. Rosemary Tonks: "The Sofas, Fogs and Cinemas", "The Little Cardboard Suitcase", and "The Ice-cream Boom Towns". (Available at the [ http://www.amazon.com/Anthology-Twentieth-Century-British-Irish-Poetry/dp/019512894X/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/102-3329715-1920940 Amazon.com] entry for Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry (Paperback), though registration is required to search inside the book)

I kinda like the mystery. I read the poems in the collection, and they were a little too breathless and high-flown for my taste, but not awful. Casey Abell 18:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

 * You can prove anything with blogs. I've found one  that says "Several people have been trying to contact her, or her estate, for permission to include her poems in their anthologies - but there is no trace of her.  It seems that, following her religious conversion, she abruptly ceased writing poetry and withdrew from the world.  It is not even known whether she is still alive."  To be cynical, maybe they couldn't find anyone to ask permission from so went ahead and used them anyway, hoping it would be OK.  And the Keith Tuma book is already quoted in the article.--Brownlee 13:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the blog entry I quoted mentions the efforts to get permission for a collected edition of Tonks' poetry. According to that blog entry by Nate Dorward, an editor named Michael Schmidt at Carcanet Press has been "trying for years to get permission to do a collected Tonks". I don't see any reason to doubt the good faith of Dorward's blog entry. He admits that he never corresponded directly with Tonks but had to go through an intermediary. He doesn't pretend that he sat down for tea with her and talked about the weather.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything with Dorward's blog entry, except to show that others have tried to contact Tonks over the years. By the way, the Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry is mentioned in the article but not quoted. Again, I see no reason to doubt the good faith of its assertion that the editors obtained — apparently through an intermediary — permission to use Tonks' poetry. Casey Abell 15:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Please read the references: there is one that says 'Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry (ed. Keith Tuma) contains a biography cited as "Tuma"'. I quote Tuma extensively.  It may well be that before Rosemary Tonks disappeared, she delegated her copyright authority to some agent, and that the agent has no reason to believe she has died.--Poetlister 17:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to get ridiculously technical, but the article paraphrases Tuma's work and doesn't quote it. Nothing wrong with that, as Seinfeld might say. The paraphrases are all carefully sourced. One thing the article definitely doesn't refer to in any way is the anthology's assertion that Tonks gave permission to use her poems. For the life of me, I can't imagine why the anthology would lie about this matter. Tonks' poems make up three pages in a nearly thousand-page anthology. If there had been the slightest doubt about Tonks' permission, the poems could have been dropped without anybody noticing, much less caring.

I'm not convinced by the mystery-at-any-price explanation that a literary agent, completely unaware of Tonks' whereabouts or even whether she is still alive, is handing out permissions. The far more prosaic and likely explanantion is that, through the agent, Tonks gave Tuma and Dorward permission to use a very brief selection of her poems in the huge OUP anthology. And it's not incredible that she is currently reluctant to hand out permission for a separate, full collection of her poems, as Dorward comments, because of the unwanted publicity it might attract. I admit this explanation is desperately dull, much less entertaining than the poet-disappears-under-mysterious-circumstances-and-nobody-on-earth-knows-where-she-is story line. In a strange way, I hope your explanation is correct. As I said, I like the mystery. But my guess is that the explanation is, sadly, far more prosaic. Tonks just wants to avoid publicity. Casey Abell 18:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

 * I have to correct one thing I wrote. I misquoted the OUP anthology on the permission for Tonks' poetry. The anthology states that the permission was obtained through Sheil Land Associates, Ltd. They're apparently the literary agent that Dorward referred to in his blog. I did a quick Google check, and this organization seems to be a legitimate agency. It strikes me as unlikely in the extreme that they would be handing out permissions without Tonks' consent or knowledge. Otherwise, we would probably have seen a full collected edition of her poetry by now. Literary agents hardly like to sit on publishable and potentially profitable material, and there have apparently been very real efforts to get permission from Tonks for a full collection.

 * Again, I think the most likely explanation is hopelessly humdrum: Tonks wants to avoid publicity and is resisting efforts to get her permission for a full collection, as opposed to use of a few poems buried in a massive anthology. Let's hope I'm wrong and there's some much more intriguing mystery involved (wink). Casey Abell 18:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I paraphrased Tuma rather than quoting him verbatim. I had to avoid a copyvio. But the fact that I referenced him more than once might have alerted people to the fact that I was aware of his work. As for the literary agent, it is plausible that Tonks gave instructions to him or others before she disappeared and the agent is doing no more than following his instructions.--Poetlister 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, okay, if you have to have mystery at any cost. But is it plausible that Tonks would have disappeared while leaving detailed instructions on exactly which three poems should be authorized if a couple editors turned up decades later with an anthology project? Sorry, but after a while the mystery-making seems a little silly. As I said, I hope you're right, and there's some appealing mystery at work. But the far more logical (and sadly boring) explanation is that Tonks granted permission, through her agent, for those three poems in the anthology - and is now resisting requests for a complete collection because she doesn't want the publicity. Casey Abell 23:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Policy

 * I've just read this page, and the issues are easily resolved by looking at policy. Key is WP:NOR:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.... Original research excludes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any personal analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position the editor may hold. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. See this example for more details.... An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you.
 * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * It introduces original ideas;...
 * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;...

 * Also relevant is WP:V:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

 * And WP:TPG:

Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material.
 * If a reliable source says something, then that is what wiki then says, without including interpretation and speculation. If there are two conflicting reliable sources, then they are both included from a WP:NPOV, giving appropriate (not necessarily equal) weight to each. In this case there is only one source, which is Andrew Motion in The Times. That is the statement that should be made, and which finally has been:
 * As Andrew Motion wrote in 2004, she "Disappeared! What happened? Because I admire her poems, I've been trying to find out for years... no trace of her seems to survive - apart from the writing she left behind."
 * As far as an agent granting permission for use of her work, that is all that we know — that an agent granted permission. That can be stated, but nothing further, because nothing further can be (or at least has been) verified. If there were a universally necessary condition attached to giving such permission, i.e. that the poet must be alive in contact with the agent at that point in time, then it would be a different matter, but there is no such universal condition, and all number of explanations can be made. An agent acting on behalf of a writer would continue to do so in their absence, rather than turn away income, (unless receiving instructions to the contrary) so it proves nothing.
 * Happy editing!
 * Tyrenius 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. I'll add the following statement to the article in the "Career" section:

 * Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry, which published three of Tonks' poems in 2001, states that permision to use her poems was obtained from a literary agency, Sheil Land Associates, Ltd.

 * To comment further, I'm not sure why Nate Dorward shouldn't be accepted as a reliable source. As far as I can see, his statements about getting permission for the use of Tonks' poetry are supported by the permission notice in the 2001 anthology. He appears to be a legitimate poetry editor of a magazine called The Gig. He has also published music criticism in a number of magazines. I realize he published his comments about Tonks in a blog. But the article already cites another blog in the very first footnote. I won't press the issue, because for some reason Dorward's blog seems to be considered unreliable while the other blog is accepted. But in his blog Dorward states that the literary agent gave him to understand Tonks was still alive around 2000. Including this statement in the article might set off dispute, though, so I won't add it. Neither will I add Dorward's assertion that another poetry editor, Michael Schmidt, has been trying to get permission for a collected Tonks, with no success.

 * I'm also not sure I understand the statement: "An agent acting on behalf of a writer would continue to do so in their absence, rather than turn away income, (unless receiving instructions to the contrary) so it proves nothing." In fact, there seem to have been efforts to get permission for a collected edition of Tonks' poetry, which have been turned away - or at least have been unsuccessful so far. Does this mean the agent is receiving instructions to the contrary? All this is speculation, which I agree shouldn't be included in the article. But at least we can say that an agent granted permission for the use of three of her poems in 2001. Casey Abell 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the first footnote doesn't cite a blog anymore. Blogs aren't considered a reliable source as general rule, but editorial judgement has to be made. A blog by a named staff journalist on the Guardian web site would be acceptable (but not a post made in response to the same blog by a member of the public). These things have to be arrived at by consensus, both in general and on a case by case basis. I don't object myself to the Nate Dorward reference, as it seems reliable, but maybe another editor would. The danger is illustrated by former "note 1" where a blog said she was born in Argentina, but Bloodaxe say it was London. They obviously both can't be right, so we go with the reliable source (that doesn't mean it's right!). Tyrenius 07:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree that including Dorward's comments in the article, even in ultra-careful "he stated" style, might cause some dispute. So why bother? The reference is on the talk page for anybody who's really interested. The whole issue of blog reliability is a difficult one. Frankly, some editors might object to a Guardian blog as biased by the paper's well-known political tendencies. And a response on a blog by a member of the public might well be more reliable than a comment by a named staff jounalist. Jayson Blair was a named staff journalist, after all. Leaving the reliability of blog entries to consensus is probably the only possible approach, but this means a few objectors can keep out material that really should be in an article to provide balance. I believe Dorward's comments on Tonks, for instance, would be a useful counterweight to Motion's uninformed (by his own admission) speculations. But again, it's not worth a fight. Casey Abell 13:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You've misunderstood WP:NPOV. That only applies to editors, not to sources, which can be (and often are) POV. The editor must represent these fairly, according to their importance and significance. Re. Dorward, there is always WP:BRD. Discussion doesn't have to be a fight! Tyrenius 14:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * We'll just have to agree to disagree on my understanding of WP:NPOV. After nearly nine thousand edits to the encyclopedia - admittedly, a couple thousand were anonymous - I think I have a good understanding of the policy. But I would say that, wouldn't I? (wink). Also, while I agree about being bold, you have to know when to pick your fights (or discussions). Adding Dorward's comments to the article would produce disagreement, and this frankly isn't an article where I care enough to start a disagreement. I've had my say on the talk page, and I'll leave it at that. Casey Abell 15:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't want to spend any more time on it, because this isn't the right place, but WP:POV is worth another look. Tyrenius 10:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Layout
Guide to layout Mostly this seems to be followed, but it does allow for section order to be changed by poets and mathematicians. Tyrenius 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Disappeared" categorisation revisited
Since the only "users" supporting Tonks' description as a "disappeared person" in the earlier discussion were apparently all sockpuppets of a single user who has since been banned, would anyone object if Tonks were removed from the "Disappeared people" category? For reasons discussed at length above, she really does not seem to fit the criteria. Perodicticus 10:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * The "disappeared" category may be a little melodramatic. Still, Tonks has disappeared from general public view, though there's some evidence that she may have maintained contact with her literary agency. If and when she resurfaces in public, we could remove the category. For now, though, the category still seems somewhat appropriate. Casey Abell 16:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Categories should be based on article content. The only observation on her whereabouts in the article is by Andrew Motion, who says she "disappeared", so that would seem to justify the category. Tyrenius 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Motion admits his complete ignorance of the situation, so it seems pretty far-fetched to hang even a Wikipedia category on his comments. But Tonks does seem to have dropped from public sight, though a poetry editor says her literary agency assured him in 2000 that she was still alive. As long as she stays out of public view, I'd keep the category, but not because of what Motion says. Casey Abell 16:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * If you don't accept that, then there is no justification for the category. Otherwise she is simply keeping a very low profile. The lack of presence doesn't justify the assertion of disappearance, unless there is a source to say so.  So category goes then. Tyrenius 17:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, if we're only hanging the category on Motion's comments, then maybe it should go. By his own admission, Motion has no knowledge of the supposed "disappearance." We could change the category to "Possibly living people." Casey Abell 19:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Categories should be totally justified by the article per WP:BLP. I've looked at some people in Category:Possibly living people. It includes some people whose birth date is unknown, some who have been declared legally dead, some who are believed to be dead.  I'm not sure Tonks can be presumed to be anything other than alive by sources available. Tyrenius 20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Everyone seems agreed on the facts relating to Rosemary Tonks; the problem is the meaning of Category:Disappeared people. This discussion should be moved to Category talk:Disappeared people.  There are too many poorly-specified categories in Wikipedia; editors should not take a Category as a tablet of stone handed down from on high.  If a category is vague, it should be clarified; if it is unworkable, it should be deleted (not just removed from articles, but WP:CFDed). jnestorius(talk) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lost Voices
If anyone is still monitoring this page they may be interested to know, possibly already do, that BBC Radio 4 has a new short series titled "Lost Voices", introduced by Brian Patten. Tonks will be the subject of the next episode - broadcast on March 29 at 16:30 and repeated the following Saturday. Perhaps this will inspire some new interest in her work and whereabouts. I discovered her poems in a very early issue of Transatlantic Review (#2 from 1959)and was surprised to see in the biog note that an exceptionally talented poet that I had never heard of before had been a London based writer of children's stories - and much the same note when she published several more poems in TR#7 a year or so later. Altcult101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rosemary Tonks. 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/20061002070734/http://www.theindexer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=44 to http://www.theindexer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65&Itemid=44
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113220506/http://www.poems.com/essaodri.htm to http://www.poems.com/essaodri.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201092120/http://www.bartleby.com/66/6/61406.html to http://www.bartleby.com/66/6/61406.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) 16:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rosemary Tonks


text:
User talk:Yaf201

"Cymru / Wales" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cymru / Wales and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 15:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Cymru / wales" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cymru / wales and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 15:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Yaf201


text:
User:The Ronin

Aka DivinO, .seVer!Ty^-

For my userboxes please go to this link.

Willy on Wheels
If you would like to eat Willy on Wheels, please sign your name here. The Ronin 01:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Not Wonka, I hope.

Dfrg.msc 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC) I'll have him baked; not fried.

Iownnoobs 11:19, 17 August (UTC) Sounds delicious.

''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 21:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC) I want to bust his beak!

Multi-Licensing
I agree to multi-license all my contributions as described below:

My Contributions

''This idiot-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it'' =)

title: User:The Ronin


text:
Devario shanensis

Devario shanensis is a small, freshwater fish of the family Cyprinidae found in the Irrawaddy and Salween River basins.

title: Devario shanensis


text:
Talk:Dixons (retailer)

Content removed from article for NPOV
I have moved some content from the main page into this discussion page. As the article currently stands, this text stands out as heavily biased. The content itself is eligble for inclusion, but the whole article needs rewriting and extending (incorporating this content) in order to appear an unbiased, encyclopaedic article.

Discussion of removed text and subsequent revisions to it

 * So, if I understand you correctly, provided that there is more on the history of the company and its day-to-day business (ignoring all the stuff it gets censured for throughout the press and standards authorities) you'll allow the content back once the proportion of the article that is taken up with criticism is reduced below a certain percentage? Is that correct? --bodnotbod 00:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not exactly a question of percentage, more a question of undue weight.

 * The policy of having a neutral point of view is not to hide different points of view, but to show the diversity of viewpoints. In case of controversy, the strong points and weak points will be shown according to each point of view, without taking a side. The neutral point of view is not a "separate but equal" policy. The facts, in themselves, are neutral, but the simple accumulation of them cannot be the neutral point of view. If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

 * This needs to be an article about the company. So, what is the company history?  What does the company do now?  What is the company known for?
 * This content will have a place there, but I think it needs to be balanced. For example, if we include criticisms from the Consumers Association, it is only fair to include John Clare's reply.  Also, some of the links you have added are not specific to Dixons.  Those that apply to the DSG International group as a whole might belong better in that article.  Those that also apply to completely seperate companies (eg Office of Fair Trading press release should probably have that made clear. --Throup (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm game. Where can I find out about a retailer's history? Where did you get your info about the company's origins from? My usual sources probably won't be much use: they seem to return stuff about share prices mostly. --bodnotbod 06:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * In the meantime, since I haven't had a source for the history, I've added a bit more to the criticisms - there was a whole issue with Peter Mandelson and Intel castigating their PC pricing I hadn't previously known about until I did research looking for a company history. What I shall do soon as to break the issues down into sections so that the criticisms and Dixons' responses can go in dialogue with each other, because many of Dixons replies to the concerns are very interesting. I'm also still keen to hear about the history of the company, as I'm sure that's interesting too. Oh, and I've formatted this page to help anyone who finds us either by accident or through the boiler on the article, so that they can join the discussion. --bodnotbod 13:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Great. One of the best sources of info about the company history is at the group website: www.dsgiplc.com.  The "about us" section has a full corporate history--much of the early stuff is exclusively Dixons and later on it becomes a mix.  Takes a little sifting to work out which bit applies to which chain.  For current details of all of the DSG chains, the annual reports in the "investors" section have a lot of good information.

 * One of the areas of the NPOV policy which concerned me here was to do with how we select facts.

 * If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.

 * One of the "rules of the media" is that a story criticising a company or individual will propogate more readily than a defence or rebuttal, regardless of the truth of the matter. I would think it worth selecting a few of the links you have discovered and add them in to the article, instead of them all.  For example, we don't need 7 news stories telling us that extended warranties have been criticised.
 * When it comes to integrating the criticisms into the article, I would also think it worth including them in the article at a point appropriate to the timeline. For example (as I notice we have both made edits to other areas of the group) Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today.  Similarly, if Dixons have made changes since the report (I don't know if they have, but I know their management has merged with Currys; it says so in the group's latest annual report) then we should do a similar thing here.
 * I won't have any more time to think on this tonight (I've got a play to perform!) so I'll end my ramble here. I'll catch up with things tomorrow. --Throup (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello. I won't be doing much more today either. But to take your points one by one:
 * One of the areas of the NPOV policy which concerned me here was to do with how we select facts... If only the favorable (or the unfavorable) facts of a point of view are shown in an article, the article will still be non-neutral.
 * What you fail to account for is that you are at liberty to document the opposing view here too. Instead of doing so you chose instead simply to remove all my text from the article. Your demonstration of "selecting facts" by "removing all the ones you didn't write" suggests a gap between your pleasant words and the less compromising truth of your action. However, removal of the text is only an interim solution, and it is hoped that someone who has found convincing counterclaims to the criticisms adds them here before a form of the above text goes back in the article. I'm sure you wouldn't want to count on me to adequately counter the myriad claims of anti-competitive behaviour. Indeed, I think I am not up to the task. It is certain that Dixons own press office failed effectively so to do, I'm unlikely to fair any better. And you kind of muddy your keen sense of NPOV when you point me towards the company's own website as "one of the best sources" of its history (you provide not a single other). I guess you have a marvellous sense of irony, and I appreciate the joke, thank you.
 * One of the "rules of the media" is that a story criticising a company or individual will propogate more readily than a defence or rebuttal, regardless of the truth of the matter.
 * I agree that criticism makes for good copy. However your implication that the truth does not matter is wide of the mark, since I have no doubt Dixons can afford a fantastic legal department with which to fight any unjust statements made against them. Another rule of the media is that you don't invite expensive lawsuits. Looking at any of those stories, what strikes you is the worrying weakness of Dixons defence. However, you are correct that Dixons responses need to go into the article, and I shall endeavour to place them in. It will not, I'm afraid, go much towards painting them in a better light since their arguments are weak. Furthermore they are fighting for their own self interest, whereas the forces ranged against them; government, individual MPs, ministers, authorities of various kinds, will inevitably be seen as less partial.
 *  we don't need 7 news stories telling us that extended warranties have been criticised.
 * I disagree. Since this section of the article proves so contentious I would fear removing one of the references because once I have done so I can imagine someone saying "where's the evidence that this was 'WIDELY reported'? One/two/three articles doesn't equal widely". So I think it's vital all claims are given maximum support so that if the wider community has to referee on this matter they have all the evidence to hand.
 * When it comes to integrating the criticisms into the article, I would also think it worth including them in the article at a point appropriate to the timeline. For example (as I notice we have both made edits to other areas of the group) Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today.
 * I agree that criticisms need to go in the correct article (Currys/Dixons), but I disagree with the timeline assumption. On many other articles criticisms are put in their own section, eg McDonalds / Nestle /  Coca_Cola / Pepsi / The_Gap_%28clothing_retailer%29 / Benetton... Timelines tend to make for very staid, unflowing articles if followed too rigorously. At any rate, the criticisms cover a span of a mere five years, so in terms of the entire history they are probably well left as a unit.
 * Currys have introduced a new service agreement (whateverhappens) since the extended warranty report, so in that article the report should be mentioned before we discuss Currys as it is today.
 * I never thought I'd be excited to see the terms of a new service agreement, I look forward to you writing about it. I'll have a look at that history and also try to cobble some sense together from Dixons awkward fidgeting after each new accusation was thrown at them. --bodnotbod 19:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

 * This dicussion is getting a little hard to read :-). As a general response, I am not expecting you to do all the hard work here; my reason for starting the discussion here in the first place was for the two of us (and anyone else who wants to, of course) to work together on the article.  If I just wanted to censor the article, I would not have backed up the text I removed.  I am firmly of the belief that we both want to have a balanced article which is both informative and compliant with the NPOV policy, otherwise we wouldn't both be here.
 * And you kind of muddy your keen sense of NPOV when you point me towards the company's own website as "one of the best sources" of its history (you provide not a single other). I guess you have a marvellous sense of irony, and I appreciate the joke, thank you.
 * Um... I don't really know what to say to that. I would love to hear how content such as "Charles Kalms opened the first Dixons photographic studio at 32 High Street, Southend. The business was incorporated as a private company called Dixon Studios Limited and registered on 27 October 1937 with share capital of £100." can be seen as biased.  I was not suggesting we include the company's advertising copy in the article, but I don't know of a better source for such things as dates and places.  But if it was that easy to make you chortle, I might reconsider a career in stand-up.
 * As to a seperate criticism section, I gladly concede to your suggestion after seeing these other examples. I am certain I had seen a Wikipedia guideline advising my original suggestion, but seeing as I can't find it any more, it can't have been a good guideline! --Throup (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC) (continued in next section for clarity)

Working towards a new article
I thought it would be worth putting some of our discussion into practise to see how it pans out. I have created a subpage of this discussion for us to try out ideas before incorporating them into the article: /proposed.

Initially I have copied the current page and incorporated the criticisms table you have been working on from your user page. Once you have had a chance to express an opinion here, I am planning to expand on the company's history--unless, of course, our discussion here takes us down a different route. --Throup (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Please go ahead and expand the history. I had a look at the link you provided a few days ago and if I recall correctly I was a bit worried that your short history was already bordering on being a copy, not really due to NPOV but because I assume it's copyrighted material. I had a good, long think about whether I would expand the history as I suggested I may but it's hard NOT to simply copy a source when you only have the one source to go on and that source is written as tightly as an encyclopedia article is (ie you can't transform it from one style (eg. discursive and colourful) to another (straight, factual) to avoid copyright problems).

 * I'm happy for you to go ahead and expand how you will. I suspect youhave much more interest in the history than I do. At some point I assume we'll have a bit of a ding-dong when it comes back to ths issue of the criticism section, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Incidentally, I did find an interview with Mr Kalms... um... ah, here it is interview (and no, don't worry, it isn't another criticism thing - I haven't even read the whole of it) Might come in handy for recent history. --bodnotbod 14:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has now been made unbalanced in favour of Dixons by the removal of all criticism to a remote sub page. I have added a small para to the main article as a place holder. Lumos3 22:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I see Throup hasn't taken up my suggestion that he expand the history. I'll go and see if he's still interested. --bodnotbod 19:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article randomly, with no special axe to grind. Some of the criticisms about PC pricing seem to be from quite a while ago - I wonder if they still apply? It does have something of the "....and another thing!" tone about it. Maybe a shorter summary of the most recent and serious criticisms, rather than "everything bad about Dixons that google can find", would balance it better and actually be more useful?

I did find the fact that they made 40% of their profit from extended warranties absolutely fascinating, and if I may make a minor suggestion, I think that would be an excellent addition to the page on extended warranty. --Enlad 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The chief architects and arguers of the article are myself and Throup. I granted that the amount of criticism I dug up overbalanced the article and Throup seemed keen to develop the history. However, I fear he has correctly assessed that were he to expand the history I would expand the criticism in line with the total article length. His solution to this concern has been not to develop the history, it seems (for I have invited him repeatedly to continue the good work he started). At any rate, the article currently stands at a compromise I can just about live with. After all, it's not me that's ripping off the less educated shoppers of Britain who tend not to read reviews magazines or do comparative shopping on the internet. --bodnotbod 03:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately they'll never read this either... --Enlad 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'''OK, I've called time on this charade. For some considerable time I've known that Chris Throup is an employee or associate of Dixons as this link shows.''' - The fact that he accused me of POV led me to remain quiet about this so he could dig himself into an ever more embarrassing and shameful hole. But since he hasn't contributed to Wikipedia since November I tire of waiting to administer the coup de grace. It's interesting to note, is it not, that Dixons pernicious business methods and horrible disdain for the public at large extends even into the private conduct of it's lowliest employees. --bodnotbod 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Currys.digital
Why has this article been set up so that Currys.digital redirects to Dixons? It isn't called Dixons any more, so surely it should be reversed, ie. Dixons should redirect to Currys.digital.

Merge proposal
The reason that there is a separate Currys.digital article is that an anonymous user changed a simple redirect into an article in its own right. Unfortunately, they did the newbie thing of cutting-and-pasting material from Dixons en masse, which is almost always a bad thing. Apparently they were attempting to "move" it, but I don't know if they'd realised (improper "moving" aside) that leaving the original article as a dupe is bad style, both from a reader's and a maintainer's point-of-view.

There may be a case for having separate articles... but only if "Dixons" now refers to a noticeably distinct business/entity from Currys and Currys.digital. If it's just a minor branding difference on some stores, it should stay as a section within a single article.

However, regardless of whether separate articles are warranted, it's clear that the cut-and-paste near-duplicates setup that exists just now is pointless. Fourohfour 11:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I think they deserve seperate articles, as Dixons is an online store, and currys.digital is a high-street store, but agree the currys.digital article needs to be re-written. Sprinkles 03:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Dixon's is also very much still a high street store - just not in the UK. Wikipedia is written to a world perspective, not a UK one. --Kiand 03:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep separate, but rewrite to differentiate the articles. The Dixons article should cover the history of the company up to the time of rebranding and the continuence of the name on the internet etc, and the Currys.digital article should cover the history of the company since rebranding.DWaterson 11:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep separate - different businesses, different histories. Dixons is more than just a footnote in the history of the British (at least) high street. I see no justification for a merge. 138.37.199.206 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm aware that the Dixons high-street name is being retained in Ireland. What potentially concerned me wasn't the name (I'm not strongly in favour of either), but two almost-identical articles apparently describing the same business entity. Cut-and-paste (or even substantial overlap of subject matter) makes maintenance pointlessly tedious for editors, and isn't any better for readers (spot the few different facts amongst the duplicate info).
 * In short, there's more than one way to arrange this, but can we please have it so that there aren't two articles covering (almost) exactly the same thing? Possibilities:-
 * (1) The Dixons article is historical, noting the present use of the name for the website and Irish stores, but referencing them to Currys.digital, which describes the current setup.
 * (2) There is a single Dixons article, which notes the alternate Currys.digital name at the start, and also includes historical information, the Irish stores and the dixons.co.uk website.
 * You could make a case for either of the above, or perhaps another arrangement. The existing cut-and-paste dupes are just pointless though. If they really are distinct businesses, we should write the articles accordingly. Fourohfour 22:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep separate they are now 2 diffrent outlets aimed at diffrent consumers

 * Dixons (Irish high-street) and Currys.Digital (UK) appear to be different names for (basically) the same high street operation aimed at the same part of their respective markets. That's the only difference I can see.

 * This articule is not about Dixons (Irish High street) 6 stores but about all of dixons. But if you wish to compare the 2 retail outlets lets compare. PAGE 12 SEVENTH PARAGRAPH, The rebranded store will offer a larger range of products including white goods and sda, which the dixons store dont offer as they supplie only brown goods. Therefore Dixons is purely aim at the digital consumer while currys.digital is also focused at the same digital consumer it also provides much more covering the needs of other consumers --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Whilst I accept what you say, the article seems to contradict itself saying that "the Dixons brand will focus exclusively on e-commerce operations", but then goes on to discuss the Irish Dixons stores(!)

 * This is why I dislike splitting articles too far along marketing lines. Marketing can, and often does, mean that different names are used for the same thing, and the same name is used for different things; and further, that they don't worry too much about contradiction or changing things round. I don't think moving articles around based on some marketing guy's intended target for the next three months is a good idea.

 * and will continue off in there seperate directions.

 * Speculation and extrapolation. What proof do you have of this? How do you know the parent company won't decide tommorow to use a single high-street and/or website brand?
 * PAGE 12 SIXTH PARAGRAPH, Dixons to focus exclusively on e-commerce. PAGE 12 EIGHTH PARAGRAPH, Shows there intent to differentiate the two names through diffrent markets (retail and e-tail). As for tomorrow who know what might change, thats why wikipedia is a work in progress. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. Given the amount of extrapolation and speculation masquerading as "fact" on the Internet, and the fact you gave no references at first, I believe my scepticism was warranted. However, that's as good a source as any.
 * "As for tomorrow who know what might change"... well, to be fair you implied it when you said "and will continue off in there seperate directions". :-)
 * Personally I'd say that this was DSG's *intent* rather than what *will* happen, but it's no big deal.

 * This divergence of dixons and currys.digital will become more dissimilar overtime as they venture into diffrent markets.

 * Ditto. Have Dixons made clear they intend using the brands in increasingly different manners?
 * yes PAGE 9 SECOND PARAGRAPH, DSGi Plan to merge dixons with pixmania taking dixons into the european market. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Although i completely agree the currys.digital needs to be rewritten.

 * Here is a suggestion for the start of the rewrite

 * Currys.digital is the rebranded name for Dixons retail outlets in the UK excluding Ireland and the Dixons Tax Free stores operating from UK airports. In April 2006 the Group decided to move its focus for the Dixons chain from the high street and concentrate purley on e-commerce. The stores were subsequential renamed Currys.digital as an extension of Currys (also part of DSG international plc retail outlets) to allow Dixons to break free from the high street. The rebranded Currys.digital markets itself as a specialist division of Currys aimed at the technology focused consumer with the product ranges of Cameras, Personal Computers, Audio and Video equipment as Dixons had in the past, while offering a range of large and small domestic appliances that the traditional Currys stores sell.

 * Ghostavatar 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Too focussed on details about the name and missing the big picture. The start of an article should be a brief overview of the company and not get bogged down in this type of stuff.
 * As I said before, if the high-street Dixons (in Ireland) and Currys.Digital are just different nameplates for the same operation, run by the same people in the same manner, then they don't warrant separate articles . If they were to be split along historical/present lines, it might be justified. The difference in names can be briefly noted in an overview for a Currys.digital/Dixons High Street article, and explained in greater detail later on in that article. Fourohfour 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * As for being run by the same people, yes they are own by the same parent company. PAGE 28 but Dixons will be managed under Nick Wilkinson Group Managing Director - Emerging Business Division and e-commerce division, While currys will be managed by Peter Keenan - Managing Director UK & Ireland Electricals, as for the Ireland stores they will managed under Declan Ronayne - General Manager DSG Ireland Ltd. --Ghostavatar 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * You may have a case. This discussion is starting to get *very* long.
 * Whether they warrant separate articles and how exactly they should be split is still open to question. Whatever's decided, the articles should be split along sensible lines that (a) Don't change according to the vagaries of quarter-to-quarter ephemeral marketing focus, (b) Don't split related information for the sake of it and (c) Don't overlap too much. Fourohfour 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper quote
Here's a quote from a newspaper article that will have an impact on this debate.

''Despite insisting he had "no concerns" about rebranding the former Dixons stores, which saved the group money, he admitted that the future of its 200-odd high street stores was in doubt. He said the group would not be renewing the leases on its Currys.digital stores because of the upward pressure on rents.'' John Clare interview in the indepentdent 18 January 2007

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.38.132.100 (talk • contribs).

"Merge debate ended"- this is still a dupe...
There's still a lot of duplicate information in Currys.digital and Dixons. Since this is indicative of bad organisation (from a reader's POV) and hard to maintain, it should be dealt with. Which information belongs where- any thoughts? Fourohfour 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Currys digital logo.gif
Image:Currys digital logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dixons.png
Image:Dixons.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Currys digital logo.gif
Image:Currys digital logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dixons (retailer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://nsg.fiftylessons.com/executives/Stanley_Kalms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150825050127/http://www.dixonstravel.com:80/ to http://www.dixonstravel.com

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion
It is looking like Dixons Travel is set to become defunct as well according to it's website - since they are both small articles, might it be worth merging them and just making Dixons Travel a section towards the bottom?--Zerbstill (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dixons (retailer)


text:
Glenn Shuck

Glenn W. Shuck was an assistant professor in the Religion Department at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts. He received his Ph.D. from Rice University, and is best known as a scholar of North American evangelicalism.

His book Marks of the Beast: The Left Behind Novels and the Struggle for Evangelical Identity, was published by NYU Press in 2005. He followed this with a collection of original essays co-edited with Jeffrey J. Kripal of Rice University on the Esalen Institute in California, published by Indiana University Press in 2005. Shuck's scholarship and teaching also focuses on New Religious Movements in the United States as well as the Protestant Reformation and contemporary trends in religion and politics and apocalypticism and millennial movements. His current work focuses on the roots and consequences of American cultural pessimism, with a book co-written with John M. Stroup in Fall 2007 from Baylor University Press. His publishing and pedagogy is also heavily influenced by insights provided by American Continental philosophers, especially Mark C. Taylor of Williams College and Edith Wyschogrod of Rice University. He received his B.A. from Texas Lutheran University in German Studies, and maintains an active interest in German theology and politics, and has published an article in German in the theological periodical "Zeitzeichen" titled "Trojanisches Pferd im Kulturkampf: Die apocalyptischen Left Behind-Romane sind Teil eines evangelikalen Kulturkampfes."

title: Glenn Shuck


text: Template:Unofficial Star Wars media

title: Template:Unofficial Star Wars media


text:
Matt Riddle (musician)

Matt Riddle (born April 5, 1967 ) is an American punk rock bassist. He was the original bass player for Face to Face, which was founded in Victorville, California in the early 1990s. After the band's 2nd album Big Choice was released in 1995, Riddle parted ways with Face to Face due to personal conflicts with singer/guitarist Trever Keith.

He then joined No Use for a Name in 1996 after the band's fourth full-length, Leche Con Carne (1995), and made his recording debut on the band's Making Friends record in 1997.

He also played briefly for the punk bands Pulley and 22 Jacks.

Riddle and Keith have reportedly reconciled their differences, and Riddle provided liner notes for a Face to Face collection entitled Shoot the Moon in 2005. Riddle was not, however, part of the Face to Face reunion in 2008.

On December 3, 2010 No Use for a Name notified fans through their Myspace page that Riddle had been hospitalized with severe pancreatitis. He had his gallbladder removed and was eventually released from the hospital.

On August 1, 2012, No Use for a Name frontman Tony Sly was reported dead at age 41, putting an end to the band's career.

Riddle currently resides in the Victorville area with his family.

On February 20, 2015, punk supergroup Implants announced on Facebook that Matt Riddle had joined the band.

In mid 2020 during the pandemic, Christopher Swinney formerly of The Ataris announced that Matt Riddle had joined his new band, Fire Sale.

title: Matt Riddle (musician)


text:
User:Tytso

My name is Theodore Ts'o (born 1968), and I am a Linux Kernel Developer. I started working with Linux in July, 1991, and am apparently the first North American Linux Kernel developer — or at least, so Linus tells me, and I think he's right...

I studied computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and graduated with an undergraduate degree in 1990. I then worked for MIT for 9 years, first in the Network Operations Group, and later as the lead for the Kerberos development team at MIT. In 1999, I joined VA Linux and worked there until September 2001. In December of 2001 I started working for IBM in the Linux Technology Center.

I am the primary developer and maintainer of the E2fsprogs, the userspace utilities for the ext2 and ext3 filesystems.

In the past I was a member of the Security Area Directorate for the Internet Engineering Task Force, and was one of the chairs for the Ipsec working group.

I am currently serving as Tresurer for Usenix, and I have chaired the annual Linux Kernel Summit in Ottawa, which now occurs just before the Ottawa Linux Symposium and is run as a Usenix workshop.

I was one of the founding board members for the Free Standards Group, and currently serve that organization as its Chairman.

title: User:Tytso


text:
Bootle New Strand railway station

Bootle New Strand railway station is a railway station in the centre of Bootle,  Merseyside, England. It is on the Northern Line of the Merseyrail network and serves in particular the nearby New Strand Shopping Centre. The platforms are elevated and are reached by ramps from the entrance at street level. Connecting bus services leave from the nearby bus station in the basement of New Strand Shopping Centre.

History
The station opened as Marsh Lane on 1 October 1850 when the Liverpool, Crosby and Southport Railway (LC&SR) extended its line from Waterloo south into Liverpool.

The station was situated on the north side of Marsh Lane which was crossed with a level crossing. It is shown on the OS 1850 six-inch map as Marsh Lane and Linacre station but with no details.

In 1850 the LC&SR had been authorised to lease, sell or transfer itself to the L&YR and on 14 June 1855 the L&YR purchased and took over the LC&SR.

It was rebuilt in an elevated position on south side of Marsh Lane, opening on 11 April 1886 and called Marsh Lane & Strand Road, there were now four tracks running through the station with platforms on the outside tracks and a wide island platform serving the inner two, all but the eastern platform had waiting rooms and extensive canopies.

The station became a junction station on 1 June 1906 when the North Mersey Branch was electrified between Liverpool Exchange and Aintree using the Seaforth connecting line, Linacre Road being the next station in that direction. The passenger service on this route was withdrawn on 2 April 1951.

The Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway amalgamated with the London and North Western Railway on 1 January 1922 and in turn was Grouped into the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in 1923.

The station was closed by enemy action on 19 May 1941, reopening on 12 July 1943. When it re-opened it had no platform buildings until 1945 when pre-fabricated waiting shelters were provided.

The station was renamed Bootle New Strand on 6 March 1967 in anticipation of the nearby New Strand Shopping Centre opening.

In 1978 the station became part of the Merseyrail network's Northern Line (operated by British Rail until privatised in 1995).

Facilities
The station has a ticket office and is staffed, during all opening hours, and has platform CCTV. There is step-free access to both platforms provided by 30 metre long ramps. There are cycle racks for 10 cycles and secure cycle storage for 32 cycles. There is a newsagents in the main building and a public telephone on platform 1. Service running information is available via CIS screens, automated announcements, customer help points and timetable poster boards.

Services
Trains operate every 15 minutes throughout the day from Monday to Saturday, to Southport to the north, and to Hunts Cross via Liverpool Central to the south. Sunday services are every 30 minutes in each direction.

title: Bootle New Strand railway station


text:
British NVC community OV5

British NVC community OV5 (Digitaria ischaemum - Erodium cicutarium community) is an open habitat community in the British National Vegetation Classification system. It is one of six arable weed and track-side communities of light, less-fertile acid soils.

It is a very localised community. There are no subcommunities.

Community composition
The following constant species are found in this community:
 * Smooth hawk's-beard (Crepis capillaris)
 * Smooth finger-grass (Digitaria ischaemum)
 * Common couch (Elytrigia repens)
 * Common stork's-bill (Erodium cicutarium)
 * Dove's-foot crane's-bill (Geranium molle)
 * Annual meadow-grass (Poa annua)
 * Groundsel (Senecio vulgaris)
 * Corn spurrey (Spergula arvensis)
 * Common chickweed (Stellaria media)

One rare species is associated with the community:
 * Loose silky-bent (Apera spica-venti).

Distribution
This community is confined to a single locality in Surrey.

title: British NVC community OV5


text:
Karl Schwarzschild Observatory

The Karl Schwarzschild Observatory (Karl-Schwarzschild-Observatorium) is a German astronomical observatory in Tautenburg near Jena, Thuringia.

It was founded in 1960 as an affiliated institute of the former German Academy of Sciences at Berlin and named in honour of the astronomer and physicist Karl Schwarzschild (1873–1916). In 1992, the institute was re-established as Thuringian State Observatory (Thüringer Landessternwarte, TLS). The observatory has the largest telescope located in Germany, which is also the largest Schmidt camera in the world. Made by VEB Zeiss Jena (the branch of Carl Zeiss located in Jena in what was then East Germany), this instrument is known as (2m) Alfred Jensch Telescope: though its mirror is 2 metres in diameter, the telescope's aperture is 1.34 m.

The observatory has observed several exoplanets and brown dwarfs, as around the stars HD 8673, 30 Arietis, 4 Ursae Majoris, and around HD 13189 on 5 April 2005. The observatory also hosts an International station for the interferometric radio telescope LOFAR.

title: Karl Schwarzschild Observatory


text:
Template talk:Lang-ru

purpose
Please stop using this template. It serves absolutely no purpose except to save people the fraction of a second it takes to type a few extra letters. The worst part about it is that calls upon no fewer than three other, fairly complex templates just to produce Russian:.

Peter Isotalo 19:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it also marks the text as written in the Russian language, which helps search engines process and index it properly. Same goes for the  template.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * See related discussion at template talk:lang-uk. It doesn't matter how many templates of what complexity are used, the result is cached until one of these templates is edited.  —Michael Z. 2005-10-16 22:29 Z

Overwikification and transliteration issues
Came here following a recent change of Decembrist revolt using this template as follows:
 * The Decembrist revolt or the Decembrist uprising (Восстание декабристов)...

Now that article also includes the following text shortly below where the template was used:
 * This uprising took place in the Senate Square in St. Petersburg. In 1925, to mark the centenary of the event, it was renamed as Decembrist Square (Ploshchad' Dekabristov, Russian: Площадь Декабристов).

Now if this template is going to be used to the fullest extent, this should have probably been changed as well, to
 * This uprising took place in the Senate Square in St. Petersburg. In 1925, to mark the centenary of the event, it was renamed as Decembrist Square (Ploshchad' Dekabristov, Площадь Декабристов).

This would have the following drawbacks though:
 * 1) Note the over-wikification of the Russian (the WP style is to only wikify the 1st occurence). This is probably just a bug of the template and could be fixed in it, by maintaining a counter.
 * 2) How to mark up the transliterated text (Ploshchad' Dekabristov)? It's clearly neither properly encoded Russian nor the English language.

BACbKA 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Vaska! For cases when language specification (" Russian: ") is redundant, we have the  template.  In the second case, the text should have been formatted as follows:

...it was renamed as Decembrist Square (Ploshchad Dekabristov, Площадь Декабристов).
 * Please also note that Cyrillic text should generally not be italicized.
 * Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A good reminder; I always forget about that template.
 * I would mark the above example up like this: (Площадь Декабристов, Ploshchad' Dekabristov), with the Cyrillic Russian first, implying that the transliteration is derived from it, and with both marked as Russian language. Furthermore, if the transliteration is not confusing or ambiguous, you only need to present the Russian word for all readers, and not its Cyrillic spelling for Russophones, so in most cases (Ploshchad' Dekabristov) would be sufficient.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-3 17:04 Z

Italicizing Cyrillic text
This the only template for a language which has the concept of italics where the text is not italicized. On pages where several languages are listed, I understand this is because there is a segment of wikipedia readers who are familiar enough with russian to glean any benefit at all from seeing the word in cyrillic, and yet not familiar enough to read it italicized. It seems exceedingly easy to read the italic text, because the letters are exactly the same, just slightly tilted. Observe:

а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я а б в г д е ё ж з и й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ъ ы ь э ю я

I would like to request a vote on my motion to italicize text displayed with this template.

eae 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. The letters look the same in Firefox and Opera, but not in the IE.  As the majority of readers use IE, it is a problem for them.  I am, however, voting neutral because I don't like how Russian text stands out when this template is used along with other, italicized lang templates.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Under many combinations of resolution/system/font italic Cirillic looks barely readable, not to say ugly. A worse sight I know is only for italicized Chinese hieros. mikka (t) 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't find the arguments persuasive. What is the practice for Bulgarian, Ukrainian, Serbian lang-templates? --Ghirla -трёп- 10:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the current practice is to not italicize the Cyrillic letters at all, regardless of the language.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per follows. --Irpen 07:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that the current tradition in both UA and RU is not to italicise cyrillic letters but italicise the transliteration that follows. Something like: Russia (Russian: Россия) or the Russian Federation (Russian: Российская Федерация, Rossiyskaya Federatsiya) is... I suggest to stick to this. --Irpen 07:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. For someone who just started learning Russian and can barely decipher non-italicized Cyrillic names, italicized text will most certainly pose a problem. But I rather perceive this as a problem that could be solved on the client side - ideally with like a stylesheet option that permits a user to switch to non-italicized Cyrillic text. Furthermore, such a solution would hopefully be independent of browser and fonts installed. --Nikai 13:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This solution will not be of much help to first-time or generally new Wikipedia readers who would know nothing of the vast customization options available to them and would just use the default skin/setup.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Mikka. While I have used the Italics in the Russian and Belarusian articles I wrote, I sometimes cannot tell what the letters are, so I think the Cyrillic characters will look better not in Italics. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) Fair use policy 16:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose—this also applies to Belarusian, Ukrainian, and several other languages. Since text in these languages is in the Cyrillic alphabet, it is already visually differentiated enough from the surrounding English, as well as from the usual transliteration which commonly follows it (this follows the editorial practice of some journals).  Also, in some browser-font combinations, italicized accented Cyrillic or old Cyrillic characters fail to italicize or fail to display at all.  Finally, adding this to the template would break all of the hundreds or thousands of occurrences where an editor has already manually italicized part of the text in the template.  —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 18:02 Z
 * Oppose as per Mikka. Elk Salmon 19:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
It should be noted that just because italic Cyrillic text appears as an oblique font in your browser-font combination, doesn't mean that it does for others. For example, readers using a serif font would probably see the correct cursive versions of some letters:
 * а б в г ґ д е є ж з и і ї й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ю я ь ’
 *  а б в г ґ д е є ж з и і ї й к л м н о п р с т у ф х ц ч ш щ ю я ь ’

On the other hand, I think italicizing is pretty common, and most beginners learn the shapes of hand-written letters. I don't see this as an important reason not to italicize, but there are other much more important reasons (see my vote, above).

Common usage for these templates for Cyrillic-alphabet languages is:

Тара́с Шевче́нко, Taras Shevchenko Володимеръ. иже кнѧжи в Києвѣ

Which yields:

 * Тара́с Шевче́нко, Taras Shevchenko
 * Володимеръ . иже кнѧжи в Києвѣ

Adding italics to the template would display:

 * Тара́с Шевче́нко, Taras Shevchenko
 * Володимеръ . иже кнѧжи в Києвѣ

In the last example, my browser (Safari) shows the stress accents as empty boxes after the letters, and doesn't italicize the letters little yus and yat. —Michael Z. 2006-03-15 18:02 Z

 * I'm using Safari 3 and ь, ъ are both italicised. I was going to point out, as has already been done, that those using serif fonts or custom stylesheets will see cursive Cyrillic rather than the standard. Bellito, master of all things Mac-related 00:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My browser (Firefox 3.0.6 on Mac OS X 10.4.11) shows the stress marks as empty both with and without italics, but as bold capital letters Т when the text is bolded, so the Taras Shevchenko example comes out as "Ukrainian: ТараТс ШевчеТнко, Taras Shevchenko". Without the template there is no problem. A different (and in my eyes less readable) font is used with the template than without, which is because the text is rendered bracketed by . 88.233.196.53 (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Due to vandalism w/ penis images, I have locked the template for editing by new accounts. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration
As it seems practically very hard to introduce an automatic transliteration from Russian into English, I removed that part of the template. --Camptown (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Please add  interwiki. Thanks. -- i Nk u b u ss e ? 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]]Y Done - Nihiltres { t .l } 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

please add russian and polish interwiki: ru:Шаблон:Lang-ru, pl:Szablon:Lang-ru ~ Чръный человек (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:38, June 19, 2009 (UTC)

Optional arguments
Let's add some optional arguments for transliteration and pronunciation of Russian words. So, that  would be converted into something like this:
 * Russian: Дивногорск, tr. Divnogorsk, IPA [dʲɪvnɐˈgorsk]

Hellerick (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this done for any other template in the lang-xx series? If it is, it'd probably make sense to be consistent across the board and share the same code.  Overall, I have no objection to this modification (as long as both the romanization and the IPA parts are indeed kept optional).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Here is a test template with this feature:

(The argument r stands for romanization, and the argument p for pronunciation. I decided not to use the argument t, because it may be perceived as both "transliteration" and "transcription".)

One of the reasons why I suggest these optional arguments is because I'm fed up with stress signs that so often appear in Russian words in the English Wikipedia. I was trying to remove them, on account of their not being a part of the Russian orthography, and because a regular English reader is not supposed to perceive them correctly, as stress signs. But I was oppose, because what I did it was removing of useful information (about the stress). So, the compromise solution was to provide an IPA transcription, with the explicitly stress shown. My idea is that whenever I see an annoying stress sign in a Russian word, I'll be able to remove it, and provide transcription instead.

As for "sharing the code"... Well, I guess for some languages it would be more useful than for the others. But it would not hurt to have this feature universal. The trouble is the Romanization tables and IPA charts are not and cannot be available for all the languages, and we won't have articles to link "tr." and "IPA" to. Hellerick (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like this test template in principle, although I am hard pressed to imagine a person who is able to read and understand IPA but doesn't know what a stress mark is. On the other hand, stress marks are indeed often confusing to those who only know the Cyrillic alphabet and not much else, so moving this information into the IPA transcription makes good sense.  We will, however, need volunteers to add the IPA transcription to articles, which could be a problem (I, for example, can read IPA, but am not really comfortable adding it on my own).
 * Another issue is the romanization—the "tr." link leads to the encyclopedic article (and so it should), yet, when this parameter is used, the romanization is going to be WP:RUS (and so it should be, too). Considering how the romanization of Russian article deals with half a dozen different romanization systems, linking to it to explain what is going to be a WP:RUS romanization may be quite confusing, and we can't link to WP:RUS itself because it is not in the article space.  Frankly, I don't know how to best go about it.  Perhaps we should drop the romanization parameter altogether and just leave IPA?  Or do you have any ideas?  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:35, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all I can imagine a person who does not know what a stress mark is. In many languages (such as French) the the accent mark is used for other purposes: to change the phonetic quality of the vowel, to mark the tone, or to disambiguate homophones. The English speakers are not supposed to know anything about the Cyrillic script at all. Even if they are told that the acute sign shows the accentuation, they still probably won't be able to determine where the stress falls in English. These misperceived accentuated spellings pest Wikipedia and now the web in whole (too often with some technical bugs, because in many cases the stress signs can't be processed correctly) — common people don't know what to do with the stress sign.
 * Yeah, it would be cool to link "tr." to WP:RUS, the trouble is this guideline helps to convert Russian names into the Latin alphabet, and is a little help for the readers.
 * As for dropping the transliteration part — we could make the transcription the first optional argument, and the transliteration the second optional argument (and yet to have the trasliteration appearing before the transcription) — thus it would be easy to use the template with the transcription even if the transliteration is not given. But I'm not sure whether we should be doing it — it depends on they way what variant of use of this template will be more common. Hellerick (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If an Anglophone doesn't know anything about Cyrillics at all, then surely it doesn't matter whether there is a stress mark or not? And from what I've seen in the Russian-as-a-second-language textbooks, an explanation of what a stress mark is usually follows the introduction of the alphabet somewhere in Lesson 1.  Of course, showing stress in IPA is a cleaner solution and one that I 100% support; I just want to point out that showing the stress in the actual word is not as much of a problem as it seems to be on the surface.
 * On the template, perhaps it would make sense to temporary create something like lang-rus with the new parameters, insert it in ~100 of more or less high-profile articles, and then check how it goes in a month or two? It's kind of hard to predict how well this template is going to fair with the new parameters; doing an experiment would at least give us an idea of how to proceed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:37, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not knowing anything about Cyrillics does not stop them from blind copy-pasting Russian words with accent marks. Sometimes I was trying to correct such spellings, but it's very difficult to convince people that the spellings used in Wikipedia are wrong.
 * Well, guess it can be temporarily used as lang-rus — if you know a bot master who can quickly change it to lang-ru later. Hellerick (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of changing them back when it comes to that. For now, would you mind adding  to articles that currently use  from the top of this list?  That should give this experiment a good exposure.  I'd love to help, but like I said before, I'm not too good with adding IPA.  Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 04:52, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Cherurbino, 11 February 2011
Both additional options may be highly appreciated in body texts and as the arguments in the templates where the link to the relevant article upon the language concerned.
 * 1) Presently the text is not italicized, unlike in another languages' templates. If there's no special reason for that exclusion, it could be a good idea to return to the common standard
 * 2) Another good idea could be to provide an expanded option set for this and all the other templates, where:
 * 3) *NULL argument shall generate " ru " (screen output ru), where 'ru' stands for the ISO 639 code;
 * 4) *zero-length argument shall generate code Russian (screen output Russian), i.e. the capitalized name of the language without any punctuation marks or spaces

Cherurbino (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was discussed in 2006 and consensus was against italicizing Cyrillic, see above. Chinese isn't italicized, either, and really shouldn't be. The fact that a different writing system is used is typically enough emphasis, so italics are only used for languages that are written in the Latin alphabet. Your second suggestion should probably discussed at one of the more fundamental templates like Template:Language with name or Template:Lang. —Кузьма討論 10:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comparison to Chinese in the terms of "writing system" (?) looks strange. What matters here, is the outlook of glyphs and the comparative density of the fonts. No doubt: Georgian, Armenian, Arab etc. need no italicizing. But as for Cyrillic, where the font density is same to Latin in all computer typesets, while a dozen of letters are roughly the same — arguments against italicizing look doubtful. Even for a naturally bilingual CYR/LAT reader (russo-spanish, franco-bulgarian etc.) it is not easy to visually cut out cyrillc text out of latin one. This bitty (разношёрстный) sample:
 * …corresponds to hebrejci, еврей and hebrew (cf. žid, жид and jew)…
 * demonstrates the breach of internal logic. It may strike even those who do not know the languages in which this string is written. Anyway, thank you for the answer.Cherurbino (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This template does not italicize Cyrillics to stay compliant with the applicable style guidelines (WP:MOSTEXT and WP:MOSTEXT). You might want to open the discussion there, as it is a more appropriate venue and more people are likely to see it there anyway. Before this template can be changed, the possibility of amending the MOS needs to be discussed. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2011; 18:54 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for these 2 links! I was just searching for traces of these discussions. — Cherurbino (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Although I generally disagree with your proposal that Cyrillic needs to be italicized, the discussion about this took place quite some time ago and could use a fresh look. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2011; 19:17 (UTC)
 * Re: "I generally disagree with your proposal that Cyrillic needs to be italicized" — well, let's state, that our points of view are different. A matter of habit, you see…
 * As for me, the first link seems to be irrelevant since it speaks of bolding, not italicizing. As for the second one — statement that "the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page" seems to be arguable: Greek is equalled to Cyrillc while the glyph basis is obviously different even ia Arial font. This prohibition seems to be written by people who had at least minor experience in working with 3 languages simultaneously (3rd is English) as well as in polygraphy and WYSIWYG basics. Alas. As for me, I shall better contribute here to the articles, not to discussions. Yet, if anybody shall resume the subject — he may call me — Best regards, Cherurbino (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki
Good morning at all. Can anyone set the interwiki de:Vorlage:RuS? Thanks --Crazy1880 (talk) 09:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 26, 2011; 18:21 (UTC)

Italics
So far I can see that other lang-XX templates use text in italics (German, French, Italian, etc.). Can anybody adjust it with the common standard? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Text in languages not using Latin alphabet is not supposed to be italicized as per MOS:Ety.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2012; 14:21 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 February 2022
Please reduce the excess spacing above the heading of section "TemplateData" to default. Hildeoc (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: that extra whitespace is unavoidable due to optional parameters inserted between two sections in the documentation. Those parser functions cannot be removed and take up a little space whether or not they're used.  P.I. Ellsworth  - ed.  put'r there 18:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed it with a hack. There may be a better way. It still looks fine at a page that uses that optional section, Lang-kmr. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thought about doing that, but didn't, for the usual reasons.  P.I. Ellsworth  - ed.  put'r there 19:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2022-12-28
In the See also paragraph, the third bullet point "List of ISO 639-1 codes (language codes)" should be changed to List of ISO 639 language codes. Reason: This is the current lemma of the list of ISO language codes and this wikipage should be directly linked. Background: ISO 639 has been recently reviewed and all parts are now merged into one document. There are no parts 639-1, 639-2, etc. anymore. --Gunnar (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-shackle-no-text.svg Not done: is usually not required for edits to the documentation or categories of templates using a documentation subpage. Use the 'edit' link at the top of the green "Template documentation" box to edit the documentation subpage. * Pppery * it has begun...  16:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Parameter for Anglicised needed
On pages with the "Use British English" template, in a result like "Russian: Алексей, romanized: Aleksey", "romanized" looks out of place, because "romanised" is the more commonly seen spelling in British English.

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Lang-ru


text: Template:Roller coaster types

title: Template:Roller coaster types


text: User talk:69.212.125.155

title: User talk:69.212.125.155


text:
Category:British National Vegetation Classification open habitat communities

This category groups together articles on vegetation of open habitats in the British National Vegetation Classification system.


text:
User talk:Abohling

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abohling


text:
User talk:Rtrockwell

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Meelar (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rtrockwell