text:
Talk:Magnoliophyta

Very interesting. I don't recall using this terminology much at all while getting my BS in Biology, and yet there it is. I still am having an internal debate on what we should use as the primary names of biology-related articles - should we stick to the most proper scientific names that only biology specialists use (exm: magnoliophyta)? Or should we use what most other scientists use (exm: angiosperms)? Or should we use what the general public is most familiar with (exm: flowering plants)?

In other articles that I have been working on we always strive to name those articles what most English speakers would recogize most easily. For example, I also contribute to many articles on historical figures and the wikipedians who are historians by trade refrain from giving articles overly pedantic names. They instead give them the name that they feel is the most recognizable by English speakers (Anton van Leeuwenhoek instead of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek -- even though most historians refer to him as Antoni in the most academic of journals).

I am torn: As a biologist, I feel that in the case of biology articles, it just doesn't seem right to use the most common name in many circumstances (except with the common names of widely known particular species). However, as a wikipedian and human being who wants to democratize science, it doesn't seem right to use the most academic and unapproachable names in most cases either.

Is there a middle ground??? Could we have an article on Flowering plants that concentrated on a lay/horticulturist interpretation and have that linked to one on Magnoliophyta that concentrated on evolution, physiology and cladistics? Would that work? I have already spoken to another wikipedian with a biology background about a similar topic at User talk:Rgamble. Do you have any ideas on this?

PS No matter which way we go, we should always provide redirects. --maveric149

This came up when the biology pages were first being created, and I don't think we were able to come up with any definite concensus. But consistency is nice to have, and there are lots of taxa that don't have any common names at all. Sometimes you can anglicize (Hymenoptera -> Hymenopterans) but that's pretty cheap and doesn't always work (Tetraodontiformes). If memory serves the higher level taxa all use the biological names because I started them off with the Protista and didn't want to change part way.

--Josh Grosse

''ITIS divides this class into 7 subclasses: Asteridae (12 orders), Caryophillidae (3 orders), Dilleniidae (15 orders), Hamamelidae (7 orders), Hamamelididae (4 orders), Magnoliidae (8 orders) and Rosidae (18 orders). It is hoped that this can be reconciled with the patchwork below. This writer acknowledges his role in the confusion. The data below is gradualy being transferred to the article an the class, and erased from here as this happens.''

We could follow ITIS, but there is a strong concensus that many of those groups are artificial and are being maintained mainly for legacy. For instance, the orders here labelled basal flowers would be placed under Magnoliopsida - and indeed, that is critical for the group being named such - but it really does appear that they are no more closely related to the other dicots than they are to monocots. And again, the Dilleniidae appear to have been an invention of Cronquist that are abandoned by most later schemes. The writer of the above has blamed the original author, who would be me, for muddying the waters, but the waters are already muddy and I think it would be a bad idea to create artificial simplicity by following an obsolete scheme. As such, I strongly oppose bringing the classification followed (Judd, as one of the most notable alternatives to Cronquist and one that seems best in line with current thought on true relationships) in line with the ITIS.
 * First, let it be said that I had no intention to attach blame to anybody in my comments; that would serve no useful purpose. That being said, I must comment on these matters as a non-biologist who is only slightly better informed than the average non-biologist.  As the person who raised the ITIS issue in the first place some comments are in order.

--Eclecticology, Friday, May 31, 2002
 * 1) The general public These people know next to nothing about biology, and even less about Latin. Their limited knowledge is based on a series of common names whose precision is sometimes seriously lacking.  When they ask questions, they want clear and unambiguous answers with no grey areas whatsoever.  This parallels what those involved in Early Childhood Education see in the development of 4-year olds.
 * 2) The specialist (In this context the botanist) Living and breathing a specialty has been known to warp one's vision of the world.  Cladistics versus traditional taxonomy can easily become a mojor controversy in the specialist's quest to have THE right system.  He doesn't want to hear about the public's discovery of a reflected eyelash in the microscope.
 * 3) Redirects Maverick149 is right above. Redirects are always available.
 * 4) Latin names These are essential for precision in whatever taxonomic system we choose, nevertheless, much of the textual material can still go in an article under the common name. It is easy to place cross references between the two.  Even I will not redirect walking the dog to walking Canis domesticus.
 * 5) Cladistics I'm no creationist, but I don't need everything answered, and every living thing set in its proper place on the tree to convince me of that. Evolution does not depend on humans knowing the details of how it happened.  To the public the difference in the shape of two leaves makes more sense than the DNA differences of the same two plants.  They can see the leaves, but none of them have a home laboratory capable of studying plant genomes.  The cladistic approach may very well be "more correct", but are we striving for purity or communication?
 * 6) ITIS I make no apology for having pushed its application, whatever its deficiencies, and my own immediate plans are to carry through with it until I have arranged all the Magnoliopsida families. I agree that it is not a perfect system, and that it may even be obsolete, but it does provide a structure within the realm of understanding. The number of incertae sedis in the alternative suggested that it was perhaps not the best choice at this time.  I certainly welcome additions to explain in each taxon, just how the systems differ in that context, and links and redirects are always available.

Two notes, Eclecticology. First, the idea that the classification of organisms should reflect their evolutionary relationships is not specific to cladistics. It is a good bet that when Cronquist worked out the system used on ITIS, he did so in the expectation that the groups were at least likely to be monophyletic. Many are not, and I get the strong impression that most botanists consider the system at least in need of considerable modification. Second, it is absolutely true that no new system as comprehensive has arisen to replace the old, and you may want to keep the old on those grounds. But the presence of incertae sedis is not a bad thing - if we truly don't know the relationships of those plants, we shouldn't make them up.

So, yeah, if you want to apply ITIS, I'm not going to stop you. But I don't see what exactly it is you're trying to communicate with it. Information on individual species and groups can be placed on their respective pages. The classification itself is not of any real interest when it is only one of several variants in use, except perhaps for historical reasons that do not warrant the central attention given to it. And information on the relationships between different flowers is simply not present in that scheme. The last are what interests me, and I would be surprised if I were entirely alone in that.

As for purity, why shouldn't we go for it? Simple listing of information is done quite well on normal webpages, or for that matter in normal books. What makes wikipedia special is its ability to stay up to date and reflect current thinking. Cronquist is mainly around as a taxonomic legacy, used all over the place because it's not easy to change and not quite clear what to change to. But we can change easily and don't have to adhere to any particular system. I followed Judd because his work seems to reflect current thought, but in the event that they disagree I would hope we depart from him, and in the worst case list everything as incertae sedis. Because, speaking as a reader, that tells me something, and it is in the hopes of getting that kind of information that I would look at wikipedia rather than some other source.

Make any changes you want, but please do me the favor of considering this before you do, ok? Thanks, Josh Grosse
 * Rest assured that I will take your comments into consideration. Even if I base my efforts in relation to ITIS, it's with the understanding that that too must remain flexible.  As I see it, their approach is also a blend of traditional and cladistic approaches.  For example, their adoption of the Ciconiiformes as an order of birds that brings together several seemingly very different former orders has not exactly pleased the traditionalists.  Even cladists seem to have their internal differences.  In their own way some exhibit a zeal rivalled only by that of some creationists, while others would be quite happy to find some degree of reconciliation with traditionalists.
 * I do believe that in using a system like ITIS, I must strive for some level of consistency in how I do so. If I don't, I at least have a responsibility of suggesting why I chose to abandon it in particular circumstances.  The strangest results will no doubt appear in taxa whose names appear in both systems.  ITIS (by my count) shows the family Rubiaceae to include 79 genera; the Wikipedia article now lists about a mind-boggling 600 genera, all properly wikified to non-existent articles.  It is more a personal time allocation decision on my part to work only down to the order level for now, but I could certainly see the need for effort in looking at some families.
 * You, and at least one other Wikipedian, have made important comments which in effect caution against putting too much separation between the classification and the thing being classified. No single reply can adequately answer that. This is more a matter of attitude, and it requires attention every time a page is substantively altered.:Finally the abandoment by some cladists of the traditional Linnaean ranks does not make things any easier for people to understand for readers whose background is often based on texts that long pre-date Cronquist.  They need to be guided from there to here, and doing that effectively requires addressing the issue from a position that they can grasp.  Here at the Magnoliophyta article the traditional view that divides it into two classes is easy enough to explain by pointing to some clearly identifiable features of the plants.  It is not enough for the cladist to simply say that this represents the latest in the understanding of plant evolution.  There is still a long way to go from a broad theoretical statement about evolution to the very specific one that demonstrates how the various elements of this plant division fit that pattern.  An article here that shows that could well be a template for the treatment of other taxa.

--Eclecticology, Sunday, June 2, 2002

Ok, let's see if we can't work something out that will cover all bases, by gradually adding more text and comments in place of the flat lists. On this, I have two preliminary suggestions, which I would want your OK for.

First, the division between dicots and monocots is prominent in all classification, but the terms Magnoliopsida and Liliopsida are only used by Cronquist and derivatives. As the informal terms dicotyledons and monocotyledons are here the far more stable, I think it would be better to list the corresponding articles under them, where they could consider differences between systems. That's a bit of an inconsistency but normally we go with the Latin names because they are more universal and less ambiguous, and here the opposite applies.

Second, you have been copying out the full hierarchy down to each group on its appropriate page. I have always thought that this was a bad idea, because it repeats information which might change, or might need commenting, all over the place. This especially applies here, even in the upper levels (Tracheobionta is far from universal, and would you add a domain or not?). A comment like Apiales is an order of dicot flowers, variously placed in the subclasses Rosidae and Asteridae should be sufficient to let people know where the order belongs, point them to where they should be able to find more information, and keeps the mess as localized as possible.

Sound good? -- User:Josh Grosse

 * Your approach sounds good.

 * I can live with Dicotyledon as easily as Magnoliopsida. I don't believe the former has yet been set up. Which form of the word, singular, plural or -eae?  Redirects will be a big help here.  This can allow the person who writes up a particular article to use either, while the reader can click on the link and end up at the same place.

 * Although I will probably continue to show a hierarchy, it may not be as full. The usefulness of this practice is to give a bird's eye view of where the taxon fall in the general scheme of things.  A parallel might be that an article on the country Gabon could include an inset map of Africa to indicate where Gabon is.  As to the trachaeobionta, I began by including it with links, and have sice stopped showing it as a link.  I would certainly be open to stop using it entirely except when we are talking directly about subkingdoms.  I had not considered including domains, but I can't say that it's a prospect that I approach with much enthusiasm.  People have an intuitive concept about the words "plant" and "animal".  These concepts may fray at the edges when we discuss more obscure life forms, but for the great bulk of knowledge that the average person encounters those are pretty good words - even when they sometimes need reminding that "animal" is not a synonym for "mammal".  Generally in showing these hierarchies I've been tending toward linking only primary ranks, and have even started to avoid linking sub-classes.  There could still be exceptions, especially when we are dealing with some of the really big taxa.

 * Comments of the type you suggest may be, along with redirects, the key to making this thing work. They can be a form of bio-NPOV. -- Eclecticology, Wednesday, June 5, 2002

As to the Rubiaceae, ITIS says that it is of unknown taxonomic completeness, and lists no other family in the order. So I used Delta, which has a lot more genera. I have yet to find a comprehensive list of all thirty-four gambiers, a number I found when I first wrote the article in Lojban. -phma

More recently many of the groupings have been questioned, and revised schemes, often quite different, have been proposed, largely based on ideas from cladistics (for a discussion of the difficulties see the copyrighted article Taxonomy, Classification, and the Debate about Cladistics at http://artemis.austinc.edu/acad/bio/gdiggs/taxonomy.html).

Saying that the newer classification systems are based on ideas from cladistics is strictly true but misleading. Some changes are mainly due to the idea that valid taxa must be clades, but others are removing groups now considered polyphyletic, which unlike paraphyletic groups are eschewed fairly generally. In short, many of them are shifts in our understanding of the organisms in question, whereas the above makes it seem like they are primarily shifts in classification methodology. Certainly cladistics had some role in those changes of understanding, but this is cladistics as a technique for systematics where it has reasonably wide acceptance, not as a dogma for classification where it is extremely controversial. So, for instance, you see some botanists argue that there is no reason to remove Magnolia and the like from the dicots (which are otherwise paraphyletic), but you do not see any arguing for the preservation of the Dileniidae (which are polyphyletic), except as a convenient system to use until a new concensus emerges. In short, I think this is oversimplifying to the point of being a false dichotomy, and am removing it accordingly. It doesn't help that the link seems dead.

I think it's time we reconsidered the classification we are using here. By now, the newer systems have become readily available, at least down to family level, and mostly consistent between sources. There are some slight variations and a few families that are left incertae sedis, but all in all these are signs that the taxonomy is a current concensus, as opposed to the work of an individual like the Cronquist system. And besides, what we have now is in many places an inelegant mess.

So, I have changed Rosales to give two lists of families, one typical of newer systems and one from the older. I would like to change all the order pages, most of which are at the moment nothing more than a list of families from one system or the other, to this same format. This would probably involve removing the children part of any taxoboxes, although the placement should be fine. After that the higher level taxa could be dealt with. Families are mostly constant between the two systems except for variations placement, which could be treated for the time being by saying "order: Rosales/Saxifragales" or something similar.

Please let me know what you think, and if you have any objections to this project.

Josh

title: Talk:Magnoliophyta


text:
User talk:Josh Grosse

Suspension of admin privileges due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of English words with uncommon properties for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article English words with uncommon properties is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/English words with uncommon properties until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:31, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Gelbflossen-thunfisch.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Gelbflossen-thunfisch.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —innotata 18:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Cromileptes altivelis - Paddelbarsch - Panther grouper.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Cromileptes altivelis - Paddelbarsch - Panther grouper.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —innotata 23:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that you will not longer be able to request restoration of the tools because of your prior inactivity. You have until December 30, 2012 to request restoration or else the policy will prevent you from doing so in the future; you would need to seek a new WP:RFA. Until December 30, you can file a request at WP:BN for review by the crats. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

(delivered by mabdul 23:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC))

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Pawn (chess), Josh Grosse!

Wikipedia editor GeorgeLouis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"This article was marked as reviewed, but it still showed up on the list of articles to be checked."

To reply, leave a comment on GeorgeLouis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nomination of List of Pokémon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Pokémon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of Pokémon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. S/s/a/z-1/2 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

not sure if you're checking this, but just in case...
--Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The Acidobacterium redirect has been nominated for deletion
== Acidobacterium listed at Redirects for discussion == An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acidobacterium. Since you had some involvement with the Acidobacterium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Teixiptla (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Need help
Hello, I am a English Wikipedian as well as I edit Gujarati Wikipedia (my native language Wikipedia). I have came here by knowing about your interest in maths. I need one help. I just created the page for Photon (particle) on Gujarati Wikipdia. There are one error in the equation: The symbol of ν (nu) are not showing in two place of equations. I don't know how to fix it as I am not expert in math programming of Wiki. I am putting that 'equation-portion' on may sandbox in English. Can you fix this problem, so I can use it on Gujarati Wikipedia. Link of 'equation-portion my sandbox : User:Gazal world/sandbox Gazal world (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Clade
Template:Clade has been nominated for merging with Template:Cladogram. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

"2984/New speak" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2984/New speak. Since you had some involvement with the 2984/New speak redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Haemosporida

The page Haemosporida has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done for the following reason:

"histmergin' brb"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Siamese -Betta- fighter fish" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Siamese -Betta- fighter fish and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 7 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Amino acid
Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

"Chromatiales" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chromatiales&redirect=no Chromatiales] and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at until a consensus is reached. Artoria2e5 🌉 11:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Electricity
Electricity has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for E (mathematical constant)
E (mathematical constant) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Josh Grosse


text:
User:Belltower

Yet another contributor, mainly World War II and other military information so far, as well as typo/syntax correction. By trade I'm a computer programmer, mainly C++, with a particular focus on 3-D geometry and rendering.

Pages I worked on I'm most pleased with (now modified beyond all recognition, but that's Wikipedia for you):
 * Battleship
 * Battlecruiser
 * U-boat
 * Star Wars/Boba Fett

 * See also : Wikipedians

title: User:Belltower


text:
NCSA Mosaic

NCSA Mosaic was among the first widely available web browsers, instrumental in popularizing the World Wide Web and the general Internet by integrating multimedia such as text and graphics. Mosaic was the first browser to display images inline with text (instead of a separate window).

Named for supporting multiple Internet protocols, including Hypertext Transfer Protocol, File Transfer Protocol, Network News Transfer Protocol, and Gopher, its intuitive interface, reliability, personal computer support, and simple installation all contributed to Mosaic's initial popularity. Mistakenly described as the first graphical web browser, it was preceded by WorldWideWeb, the lesser-known Erwise, and ViolaWWW.

Mosaic was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign beginning in late 1992, released in January 1993, with official development and support until January 1997. Mosaic lost market share to Netscape Navigator in late 1994, and had only a tiny fraction of users left by 1997, when the project was discontinued. Microsoft licensed one of the derivative commercial products, Spyglass Mosaic, to create Internet Explorer in 1995.

History
In December 1991, the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 was passed, which provided funding for new projects at the NCSA, where after trying ViolaWWW, David Thompson demonstrated it to the NCSA software design group. This inspired Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina – two programmers working at NCSA – to create Mosaic. Andreessen and Bina began developing Mosaic in December 1992 for Unix's X Window System, calling it xmosaic. Marc Andreessen announced the project's first release, the "alpha/beta version 0.5," on January 23, 1993. Version 1.0 was released on April 21, 1993. Ports to Microsoft Windows and Macintosh were released in September. A port of Mosaic to the Amiga was available by October 1993. NCSA Mosaic for Unix (X Window System) version 2.0 was released on November 10, 1993 and was notable for adding support for forms, thus enabling the creation of the first dynamic web pages. From 1994 to 1997, the National Science Foundation supported the further development of Mosaic.

Marc Andreessen, the leader of the team that developed Mosaic, left NCSA and, with James H. Clark, one of the founders of Silicon Graphics, Inc. (SGI), and four other former students and staff of the University of Illinois, started Mosaic Communications Corporation. Mosaic Communications eventually became Netscape Communications Corporation, producing Netscape Navigator. Mosaic's popularity as a separate browser began to decrease after the 1994 release of Netscape Navigator, the relevance of which was noted in The HTML Sourcebook: The Complete Guide to HTML: "Netscape Communications has designed an all-new WWW browser Netscape, that has significant enhancements over the original Mosaic program."

In 1994, SCO released Global Access, a modified version of SCO's Open Desktop Unix, which became the first commercial product to incorporate Mosaic. However, by 1998, the Mosaic user base had almost completely evaporated as users moved to other web browsers.

Licensing
The licensing terms for NCSA Mosaic were generous for a proprietary software program. In general, non-commercial use was free of charge for all versions (with certain limitations). Additionally, the X Window System/Unix version publicly provided source code (source code for the other versions was available after agreements were signed). Despite persistent rumors to the contrary, however, Mosaic was never released as open source software during its brief reign as a major browser; there were always constraints on permissible uses without payment.

, license holders included these:
 * Amdahl Corporation
 * Fujitsu Limited (Product: Infomosaic, a Japanese version of Mosaic. Price: Yen5,000 (approx US$50)
 * Infoseek Corporation (Product: No commercial Mosaic. May use Mosaic as part of a commercial database effort)
 * Quadralay Corporation (Consumer version of Mosaic. Also using Mosaic in its online help and information product, GWHIS. Price: US$249)
 * Quarterdeck Office Systems Inc.
 * The Santa Cruz Operation Inc. (Product: Incorporating Mosaic into "SCO Global Access", a communications package for Unix machines that works with SCO's Open Server. Runs a graphical e-mail service and accesses newsgroups.)
 * SPRY Inc. (Products: A communication suite: Air Mail, Air News, Air Mosaic, etc. Also producing Internet In a Box with O'Reilly & Associates. Price: US$149–$399 for Air Series.)
 * Spyglass, Inc. (Product: Spyglass Mosaic, essentially licensing the Mosaic name, as it was written from scratch not using NCSA's Mosaic code. Relicensing to other vendors. Signed deal with Digital Equipment Corp. to ship Mosaic with all its machines. Signed a deal with Microsoft to license Spyglass' code to develop Internet Explorer)

Features
Robert Reid notes that Andreessen's team hoped:

"... to rectify many of the shortcomings of the very primitive prototypes then floating around the Internet. Most significantly, their work transformed the appeal of the Web from niche uses in the technical area to mass-market appeal. In particular, these University of Illinois students made two key changes to the Web browser, which hyper-boosted its appeal: they added graphics to what was otherwise boring text-based software, and, most importantly, they ported the software from so-called Unix computers that are popular only in technical and academic circles, to the [Microsoft] Windows operating system, which is used on more than 80 percent of the computers in the world, especially personal and commercial computers."

Mosaic is based on the libwww library  and thus supported a wide variety of Internet protocols included in the library: Archie, FTP, gopher, HTTP, NNTP, telnet, WAIS.

Mosaic is not the first web browser for Microsoft Windows; this is Thomas R. Bruce's little-known Cello. The Unix version of Mosaic was already famous before the Microsoft Windows, Amiga, and Mac versions were released. Other than displaying images embedded in the text (rather than in a separate window), Mosaic's original feature set is similar to the browsers on which it was modeled, such as ViolaWWW. But Mosaic was the first browser written and supported by a team of full-time programmers, was reliable and easy enough for novices to install, and the inline graphics proved immensely appealing. Mosaic is said to have made the Internet accessible to the ordinary person.

Mosaic was the first browser to explore the concept of collaborative annotation in 1993 but never passed the test state.

Mosaic was the first browser that could submit forms to a server.

Impact
Mosaic led to the Internet boom of the 1990s. Other browsers existed during this period, such as Erwise, ViolaWWW, MidasWWW, and tkWWW, but did not have the same effect as Mosaic on public use of the Internet.

In the October 1994 issue of Wired magazine, Gary Wolfe notes in the article titled "The (Second Phase of the) Revolution Has Begun: Don't look now, but Prodigy, AOL, and CompuServe are all suddenly obsolete – and Mosaic is well on its way to becoming the world's standard interface":

"When it comes to smashing a paradigm, pleasure is not the most important thing. It is the only thing. If this sounds wrong, consider Mosaic. Mosaic is the celebrated graphical "browser" that allows users to travel through the world of electronic information using a point-and-click interface. Mosaic's charming appearance encourages users to load their own documents onto the Net, including color photos, sound bites, video clips, and hypertext "links" to other documents. By following the links – click, and the linked document appears – you can travel through the online world along paths of whim and intuition. Mosaic is not the most direct way to find online information. Nor is it the most powerful. It is merely the most pleasurable way, and in the 18 months since it was released, Mosaic has incited a rush of excitement and commercial energy unprecedented in the history of the Net."

Reid also refers to Matthew K. Gray's website, Internet Statistics: Growth and Usage of the Web and the Internet, which indicates a dramatic leap in web use around the time of Mosaic's introduction.

David Hudson concurs with Reid:

"Marc Andreessen's realization of Mosaic, based on the work of Berners-Lee and the hypertext theorists before him, is generally recognized as the beginning of the web as it is now known. Mosaic, the first web browser to win over the Net masses, was released in 1993 and made freely accessible to the public. The adjective phenomenal, so often overused in this industry, is genuinely applicable to the... 'explosion' in the growth of the web after Mosaic appeared on the scene. Starting with next to nothing, the rates of the web growth (quoted in the press) hovering around tens of thousands of percent over ridiculously short periods of time were no real surprise."

Ultimately, web browsers such as Mosaic became the killer applications of the 1990s. Web browsers were the first to bring a graphical interface to search tools the Internet's burgeoning wealth of distributed information services. A mid-1994 guide lists Mosaic alongside the traditional, text-oriented information search tools of the time, Archie and Veronica, Gopher, and WAIS but Mosaic quickly subsumed and displaced them all. Joseph Hardin, the director of the NCSA group within which Mosaic was developed, said downloads were up to 50,000 a month in mid-1994.

In November 1992, there were twenty-six websites in the world and each one attracted attention. In its release year of 1993, Mosaic had a What's New page, and about one new link was being added per day. This was a time when access to the Internet was expanding rapidly outside its previous domain of academia and large industrial research institutions. Yet it was the availability of Mosaic and Mosaic-derived graphical browsers themselves that drove the explosive growth of the Web to over 10,000 sites by August 1995 and millions by 1998. Metcalfe expressed the pivotal role of Mosaic this way:

"In the Web's first generation, Tim Berners-Lee launched the Uniform Resource Locator (URL), Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), and HTML standards with prototype Unix-based servers and browsers. A few people noticed that the Web might be better than Gopher.

In the second generation, Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina developed NCSA Mosaic at the University of Illinois. Several million then suddenly noticed that the Web might be better than sex.

In the third generation, Andreessen and Bina left NCSA to found Netscape..."

Legacy
Netscape Navigator was later developed by Netscape, which employed many of the original Mosaic authors; however, it intentionally shared no code with Mosaic. Netscape Navigator's code descendant is Mozilla Firefox.

Spyglass, Inc. licensed the technology and trademarks from NCSA for producing its own web browser but never used any of the NCSA Mosaic source code. Microsoft licensed Spyglass Mosaic in 1995 for US$2 million, modified it, and renamed it Internet Explorer. After a later auditing dispute, Microsoft paid Spyglass $8 million. The 1995 user guide The HTML Sourcebook: The Complete Guide to HTML, specifically states, in a section called Coming Attractions, that Internet Explorer "will be based on the Mosaic program". Versions of Internet Explorer before version 7 stated "Based on NCSA Mosaic" in the About box. Internet Explorer 7 was audited by Microsoft to ensure that it contained no Spyglass Mosaic code, and thus no longer credits Spyglass or Mosaic.

After NCSA stopped work on Mosaic, development of the NCSA Mosaic for the X Window System source code was continued by several independent groups. These independent development efforts include mMosaic (multicast Mosaic) which ceased development in early 2004, and Mosaic-CK and VMS Mosaic.

VMS Mosaic, a version specifically targeting OpenVMS operating system, is one of the longest-lived efforts to maintain Mosaic. Using the VMS support already built-in in original version (Bjorn S. Nilsson ported Mosaic 1.2 to VMS in the summer of 1993), developers incorporated a substantial part of the HTML engine from mMosaic, another defunct flavor of the browser. As of the most recent version (4.2), released in 2007, VMS Mosaic supported HTML 4.0, OpenSSL, cookies, and various image formats including GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP, TGA, TIFF and JPEG 2000 image formats. The browser works on VAX, Alpha, and Itanium platforms.

Another long-lived version, Mosaic-CK, developed by Cameron Kaiser, was last released (version 2.7ck9) on July 11, 2010; a maintenance release with minor compatibility fixes (version 2.7ck10) was released on January 9, 2015, followed by another one (2.7ck11) in October 2015. The stated goal of the project is "Lynx with graphics" and runs on Mac OS X, Power MachTen, Linux and other compatible Unix-like OSs.

Release history
The X, Windows, and Mac versions of Mosaic all had separate development teams and code bases.

title: NCSA Mosaic


text:
Talk:Cheerleading/Archive 1

Cheerleading also catches links from Cheerleader, so if anyone's editing this page, they can include information about the actual people who cheerlead.

I slightly edited the reincorporation, because the word "merely" undermines the importance of the aesthetics of the human body. Otherwise I second the revision. Mikkalai 17:38, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How about adding something about male cheerleaders? -Cookiemobsta 03:32, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion: Have 3 sub-categories
At the high school level, cheerleading is broken up into 3 sub categories, with cheer, song, and pep flags. Could we please mention this?

These three categories are not nationwide at the high school level, let alone worldwide. I don't really think that this merits inclusion.MsDivagin 19:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

suggestion: add movie "drumlines" to cheerleading wiki?
Greetings,

The first movie that I saw that really explained the sheer competitiveness to cheerleading was in "Drumlines"

http://www.drumlinemovie.com/home.html

It centres on the drummers rather than cheerleaders, but certainly helps put cheerleading in context.

I'll leave that to the experts at this wiki to include or not.

Thanks

jason www.avaiki.nu

- I've seen the movie Drumline several times, and I haven't spotted any significant cheerleading in it. -SmakD

Stereotypes, contempt
The stereotype is described twice in the one paragraph. This is unnecessary.

Also, the sentence:

"This behaviour usually arouses contempt among high school subcultures in the lower order."

is very much POV.

--Thedangerouskitchen 13:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

 * This was trivially obvious as POV, I removed it today. --Yamla 17:44, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

--I18n-- This article almost exclusively deals with the American idea of cheerleading. It needs more info on practices in other countries (such as those in Britain and Ireland which are essentially all-male roles). --Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 28 June 2005 19:48 (UTC)

--Bob-- It is true however, that kind of behavior does arouse contempt among many high school subcultures.

I hate the stereotypes placed on cheerleaders. I am a cheerleader and i am one of the top students in my class. The stereotypes are bull.

 * There is a lot of truth to the stereotypes, and they should be included. The above comment proves it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.203.109 (talk) 15:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

 * Stereotypes have no place in an encyclopedic article unless you can clearly and distinctly reference them properly AND factually write about them. Very tricky. They probably should not be included due to the inherently POV nature. VigilancePrime 06:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms
I would go so far as to say the ABSENCE of information about the cheerleading stereotype is an example of POV, as the stereotype is out there and a very important (if undesirable) part of popular opinion about cheerleading. I added in a small paragraph about the uniforms which I don't feel violates NPOV, although I really think there should be a stereotype / pop-culture reference paragraph in there as well. Seyon 06:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

fetish category
I removed this from the Category:Sexual fetishism, since that's not what this article is about. If you look at other articles in that category, you'll see there is *separate* "fetish" article for each type. Example the article foot fetishism is apart of the category. But, the article foot is not. --rob 05:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Grrr, I didn't see that you had added a comment here so I already went and reverted your change. It appears however that you have a point.  I'm not sure (yet) whether I agree with the point, I'll have to check into it.  I'm about to go to work so I'll report back later in the day.  In the mean while, I'd be okay if you reverted my changes back.  --Yamla 13:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps a uniform fetishism article could be made. There must be quite a large scope for the discussion of fantasies regarding people in uniforms.  violet/riga (t) 14:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I should have adddd to the discussion page, before removing it. Per Yamla's comments, I have re-removed it.  I think I agree with Violetriga, about uniform fetishism (same concept as fur fetishism and others) although hopefuly there's some sort of "standard" academic term.  Such an article could cover Catholic school uniform, in a like manner.  --rob 19:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Movies
I'm surprised there's no mention of movies like Bring It On which was all about cheerleading. —Phil | Talk 10:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

 * There used to be a section on movies, however the problem I had with that is many, if not most of the movies listed really had nothing to do with the actual practice of cheerleading. It just so happened that a main character was a cheerleader, or whatnot. Spuddy 17 19:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

cleared up definition
I cleared up the definition of cheerleading at the top of the page. The first sentence was: "Cheerleading is the organized use of song, dance and/or gymnastics to encourage crowds to cheer on sports teams at games and matches." That is true for cheerleading teams who do cheer on sports teams, otherwise known as "sideline cheerleaders," but that definition does fit the definition of all cheerleading teams, such as all-star cheerleading teams. Although the definition goes on to explain that cheerleading is also undertaken as a competitive sport, it can be interpreted as "all cheerleading teams cheer for sports teams, but some of them compete as well." I also erased the part mentioning cheerleading as recreational activity. I'm almost positive there is no such thing as a "recreational cheerleading team." They're either a team that cheers for sports, or a team that is competitive, in that case, they are considered all-star. Additionally, it mentioned that competitive cheerleading is most popular in the United States and Canada. Actually, the majority of cheerleaders in places such as the UK and Australia are competitive. Spuddy 17 22:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are many "recreational Cheerleading" programs in my area of the country. The local YMCA has one. It is a feeder program into their allstar program. dabele

What's the difference between...
This is what I need to know: What's the difference between cheerleading squads and pom squads? Aren't they the same thing? Oh, and I noticed there isn't a colorguard article on Wikipedia. Could someone who knows more about than I do possibly write up one? Fanficgurl 5:27, 1 Feb 2006 (UTC)

A poms squad is a type of dance team that uses pom poms in their routines. Think NBA dance teams, for example. Spuddy 17 23:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

overkill?
I noticed there is a huge section dedicated to the how tos of partner stunts. There are so many different stunts that cheerleaders perform that listing every single one, and how to perform them, would use an enormous amount of space. I think it would be a lot easier for the reader to swallow if maybe some basic stunts were included, not every stunt a parter group performs, and the how tos. Spuddy 17 06:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ashley Burns' death
Who in the world wrote this garbage about how she died? I am a friend of her mother's and know for a fact that her cause of death was due to a blunt trauma that ruptured her spleen and therefore died of internal bleeding. I don't think there is a better reference than her autopsy report. I am disgusted by this. You can not change the truth to fit your idea of cheerleading safety.

 * Great. Please update the article itself and make sure you remember to cite the information properly.  --Yamla 00:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Do most cheerleader girls have six packs?

 * No, but how is this really relevant? What is your fixation with six-packs, Kane50? --Yamla 14:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just was wondering?

Alot of cheerleaders have six packs, but so do alot of other female athletes. It is from all the training and conditioning (i.e. situps, crunches, etc.) they do.

June 24 Revision
Hi, I did some updating to the article, and will explain it here: Although I appreciated the detail of the how-to section for stunts, I thought it was unnecessary because (1) as stated before, it could get very long; (2)it might influence some child to go out and try them with her friends--wikipedia is not really an instruction manual, and in this case it would be dangerous if someone where to try them out based on the article; (3)there are lots of variations between teams as to how to perform certain stunts. So instead of listing all possible variations, I thought it might be better to have a list of the common stunts, and a brief (I tried!) description of the end result. I included a potential link to an article about stunting methods (I don't know if it is necessary though...) incase people wanted to still keep it. I saved the old stunting info to a word doc, in case anyone wants it...just let me know. Also, that info was in reference to partner stunts, and if we were going for the "end-result" description idea, there would be a lot of redundancy to describe again what all the partner stunts look like. I will add a bullet point about what partner stunts are though.

I added a few things here and there, I don't think there should be a problem with those edits.

And I added a section about famous cheerleaders. I found the List of cheerleaders afterwards, and I don't want this to just be a repetition of that list at all, but I thought it might be good to have a SHORT list of internationally famous people. Presidents, A-list actors, and others of such fame. Obvisouly there are probably thousands of actors and singers who were cheerleaders, and it would be ridiculous to include them all. But this can be perhaps, the very best. I think it would be important to include for a few reasons, the most important (probably) to dispel rumours that cheerleaders are ALL brainless/sluts etc. Another reason being that many articles (universities, etc) have lists of notable alumni...this is sort of similar. But if anyone has a problem with including it (or anything else I did here) please bring it to my attention here, and we can all figure it out. :)

2 more things: I don't know how to do pictures, so I can't do this, but the quality of these pictures are...not so good. The front one is a half of a stunt..? An the other stunt ones should be clear as to what they are doing exactly. So if someone could get some good quality photos, that would be great. Secondly, I am wondering if the results of the worlds competition should not have its own page? The FIFA World Cup has its own page seperate from soccer, etc, so I think it would be better to have its own page with all those tables. Ideas? Thanks for reading, let me know of any problems. DerGlizerndeDiamant 00:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Uniform Section
I didn't want the author to be angry if I made changes without discussing it, so I am bringing it up here. I believe that cheerleading uniforms tend to be the school or team's colours, bright or otherwise (many schools have navy blue or maroon, dark green, even black). True, the school/team colours may have been chosen to be bright in order to be more noticeable, but they could also have to do with the school's history, location, etc. I therefore think the idea that cheerleading uniforms are made to attract attention is inaccurate. Should a change be made? I also think that the fetish statement is out of place (someone mentioned it earlier in this talk page). A weird person could have a fetish with just about anything, and that does not mean it should be mentioned on every article on something about which a perverse person could have a fetish. I am not trying to rid the article of anything negative--I think it could be valid to say something about the fact that cheerleading is sometimes perceived as having sexual connotations, but I think this would belong in the history section and not a general truth about cheerleading. Thoughts? DerGlizerndeDiamant 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "sometimes considered to have sexual connotations"? Hell, the whole point of cheerleading is to let men look at pretty women... ;) — Nightst a  llion  (?) 21:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the whole section because it contained POVs, incorrect information, and overall was just creepy.Spuddy 17 02:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Stunting Revisions Vote
Of course there will be differences in what different squads/different parts of the country/world call different stunts, but I have never heard of an extension being called a "double base". Let's discuss it, or take a vote. This is an extremely common stunt, really the most basic, so it should be easy to come to a consensus based on majority for its name. (We are talking about the 4 person basic stunt with hands at clavical level, not a full extension. Hmm, that even makes it more in favour of being called an extension, it the extended version of it is called a full extension). So, I vote:

Extension DerGlizerndeDiamant 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

article too long
I posted a while ago about the article becoming too long with the description of individual stunts and whatnot. No one responded so I went ahead and deleted all the stunting and tumbling descriptions. This is not a cheerleading elements how-to. There are dozens of different stunts, tumbling passes, jumps, and motions that cheerleaders do. If each element gets its own description and how to this article will be miles long. Please leave the sections to basic descriptions.Spuddy 17 00:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Stunting
I agree that a description of every part (transitions included) of every partner (1 base, 1 flyer) stunt could be a bad idea for the reasons listed above, but partner stunting is certainly a significant part of cheerleading, especially for college and some all-star teams. While there are probably technically hundreds of different stunts, most of them are differentiated merely by the transitions involved, and the end goal of many of them is usually the same. I think in the interest of completeness that it would be a good idea either to create a new article or to devote a section in this article to general descriptions of categories of stunts. I realize that some squads call the same stunt by different names, but that is a hurdle that is easy enough to overcome and is certainly not a reason to eliminate stunt descriptions altogether.--Thizzlethethird 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to create a seperate article because this article was far too long. Spuddy 17 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There should be a SHORT "International" section and consolidate UK and Canada (and others) info.

List of jumps
I noticed that someone removed the list of various jumps from this article. I agree that it weighed this article down and is better removed. However, I have moved the information to a new list-type article, List of cheerleading jumps, so that it won't be lost from view. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

worldwide
Cheerleading, especially competitive only cheerleading teams, have been growing in popularity worldwide. Many countries including the UK, Australia, Japan, and Mexico have developed cheerleading organizations to facilitate the growing number of teams in their countries. Please do not change the parts of this article that have to do with cheerleading outside of the USA simply because you are unaware. Spuddy 17 22:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

 * I am not unaware. 'Worldwide' implies around the whole world (see the Wiktionary, or any dictionary for that matter), not simply 'overseas'. Though cheerleading has spread in a very limited way to some other countries, in countries I've lived in, in Europea (including the UK) and Australia, cheerleading is viewed as American and a novelty. In most of the world, Asia, Africa, most of Latin America, cheerleading is unknown. I am changing the wording to a compromise form I hope you can live with. mg e kelly 06:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

 * You are just trying to play semantics games with the word "worldwide." If the word "worldwide" bothers you so much in this article, then change it. However North America is not a country. When you write "...has spread to other countries, too" after "North America," it connotates that North America is a country. I corrected this by writing "it has spread elsewhere." Can we agree on this?
 * Anyway, what you have stated ("in countries I've lived in, in Europea (including the UK) and Australia, cheerleading is viewed as American and a novelty") is an opinion, an observation. I am sure there are many people in those countries who view cheerleading as a novelty, as you say. Even many Americans view it that way still. But this article is not about what people think about cheerleading, and your observations, or even my observations for that matter, have no place in this article. The fact of the matter is cheerleading is growing in popularity around the world. I can present the evidence in this by linking you to the sites of cheerleading organizations around the world. You have not shown any evidence to suggest otherwise other than your own observations.
 * Also, I will remove "American-style cheerleading" until you can explain why that needs to be there. When you say "American-style cheerleading" it connotates there cheerleading is performed differently in other parts of the world. Cheerleading

is essentially the same thing around the world. They do not practice cheerleading differently in the UK as opposed to America.Spuddy 17 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a ver "americanized" version of cheerleadering. Of course this is because the biggest place where cheerleadering is practiced is North America but other countries like Japan have also a huge cheerleader base and are pretty common in popular culture so at least it needs a small paragraph. However since the article is too long we better cut it into different articles General_Norris 24 November 2006

Two kinds of cheerleading - professional (NFL) and amateur (high schools)
Citation:

In the 1960s National Football League (NFL) teams began to organize professional cheerleading teams. It was the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders who gained the spotlight with their revealing outfits and sophisticated dance moves, which debuted in the 1972-1973 season, but were first seen widely in Super Bowl X (1976). This caused the image of cheerleaders to permanently change, with many other NFL teams emulating them. Most of the professional teams' "cheerleading" squads would more accurately be described as dance teams by today's standards; as they rarely, if ever, actively encourage crowd noise or perform modern cheerleading moves

I think this part of text expresses clear POV, notably:

 * "cheerleading" is put in quotation marks. Remember, cheer leading - this is just the origin of the name, now it's just a name with its own meaning. The fact that these girls do not encourage cheers doesn't mean that they are "cheerleaders" put in quotation marks. The fact that some kinds of football are played mostly by throwing the ball and not kicking doesn't allow you to put "football" in quotation marks (Nobody writes - American "football", so why call these teams - "chearleeding" squads ??)

 * they rarely encourage croud noise - I think even if they don't encourage, there IS croud noise (from the straight males who watch them)

 * they rarely perform modern cheerleading moves - another sentence, which has a hidden message under it, which says: real cheerleading must include high level of complexity, dangerous ancrobatic moves.

If there is POV from one side, then there must be the other POV present. For example, the level of injuries in these "cheerleading" activities in NFL is much lover than in high school acrobatic cheerleading

I even suggest that you have two different sections (or maybe even pages) about cheerleading - one about the NFL style, the other about high-school acrobatics-based

levels
include something about All-Star levels

ex. senior level 6 junior prep level 3

Suggestion: Explain culture and include criticism
I looked up this page because I've always been perplexed about the idea of cheerleading. As a non-American I'm completely unfamiliar with the cheerleading culture, except what I've gleaned from movies. I find it astonishing that there exists a sport (or activity) which puts women on the sidelines while the boys play. Even more so that this is allowed and encouraged at schools.

If this is the case, then there is surely some criticism of it - can anyone supply details on that? If it's not the case, then could there be some details as to the legitimacy of cheerleading as an activity.

I'm not the right person to do this, as I have no understanding of the activity. Kitty Davis 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

we do not just stand on the ssidelines and watch the boys play. We have competitions. football games are just a side thing that we do to build team relationships. a lot of cheerleaders dread football games because they are extremely steriotypical and a waste of time where we could spend those 2 hours on conditioning or practicing for competition.

Cheerleading

Cheerleading is a sport
The formal definition of a sport is an “athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature.” Cheerleading is an extreme physical activity, which requires an immense amount of conditioning. Stunting is a major component of a successful cheerleading team. In order for a stunt to be preformed successfully and safely each stunt group must be completely in sync. Flyers must be flexible and in complete control of their movements. Bases must posses the strength and skill in order to keep their flyer safe. To insure that the entire team performs perfectly many hours of training is mandatory. On an average week each team member must stay after-school for practice for approximately two and a half hours. Teams are often required to practice when school is not even in session. Cheerleading practices include stretching, conditioning, stunting, and routine choreography. All practices will hopefully lead to a successful competition. The cheerleading competitions are made up of many teams of the same level striving to achieve first place to bring the trophy home to their school. The average routine of a competition lasts only two and a half minutes however many hours of prep time are required before any team will ever step into an arena. Not only do Cheerleaders practice and work just as hard and long as other sports teams of our district, they are also required to maintain the same academic standards set forth by the district for all other sports team members and thereby deserve the same consideration and respect.

 * WP:RS, WP:NOR. --Yamla 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I would call cheerleading athletic entertainment, but not necessarily sport. I know there's a lot of conditioning and training involved that rivals that of most of the sports we accept, but I'd like to add that in most sports, the winner and loser(s) are decided by the competition themselves playing, not by some third party arbiter, as is the case with cheerleading, gymnastics, figure skating, etc. Hell, if cheerleading is considered a sport, marching band, dancing, and any other form of athletic entertainment might as well be. They have to practice as long as the cheerleaders do at times with these big instruments under the hot sun during the beginning of the year, and yes, there are competitions for marching band as well.

But nonetheless, the main purpose is to entertain the judges to get a high score, which is subjective amongst judges. We all know that in football, when you cross the goal line it's always a touchdown, or in hockey or soccer, if the ball goes into the net it's a goal. We all know that the team that scores the most points in football or the team with the most goals in hockey/soccer wins. But a certain score for one judge could be different for another judge. All in all, the competitions are not being decided by the competitors, but by someone who might choose to make you lose because he or she might not like the color of your hair or your personality. I'm not saying this is the case all the time, but I can imagine it happening.

But I feel that school districts should back it like it was a sport.

--Packers715 15:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is your are assuming the definition of "sport" is an athletic event in which the outcome is decided by means of objective point scoring. The Oxford Dictionary defines a sport as "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others." The Websters Dictionary defines a sport as "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature." The word "sport" is a very broad word that encompasses many different activities. So in essence, yes, cheerleading, gymnastics, and figure skating are sports, just a different type of sport from football, soccer, basketball, etc...Spuddy 17 03:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your argument that cheerleading is not a sport is completely false. Your definition of a sport is "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature." Cheerleading does require skill. we run as fast as we can into flips and we also throw 100 pound girls in the air and the girls are required to flip and twist in the air and pull flexibiblity skills with their faith on their bases and backspots to catch them. That seems like physical activity to me... and then we put together a 2 minute and 30 second routine to compete with in competition. Thank you for your time. and also there is not different types of sports.. a sport is a sport.

Celebrity Cheer
Celebrity Cheer is listed as being from Maryland, which is incorrect. Celebrity has two gyms - one in Salem, NH and one in Montville, CT. The team that placed second in International Junior was from the Salem gym. Please correct this! Thanks. ImsoFIERCE 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

GW Bush misinterpretation?
Listed among the famous cheerleaders is George W. Bush, presumably because of a quote in this section based on this source:
 * At 15, he left home to start on the traditional family educational track at an elite prep school in the East, Phillips Andover. George Sr. had been a baseball star wearing the Andover "A." Bush also played baseball, but mostly made his mark as a cheerleader for the teams. (emphasis added)

What I'm trying to figure out is whether that term is actually relevant, or whether the CNN writer's use of the word "cheerleader" is too coloquial to earn any mention here. Thoughts? $$\sim$$ Lenoxus " * " 04:05, 30 April 2003

Accourding to [] Bush was a head cheerleader (in the cheer on another team sense, lead the crowd, member of the cheerleading squad/captian) for Phillips Academy in Andover, MA. MsDivagin 20:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheerleading in Japan?
No information on Japanese cheerleading teams? It is quite different from US style cheerleading, and well worth a mention. Squads are usually half male, and taiko drums and large flags are often involved.

As an expert in American style cheerleading, I know that this style is very popular in Japan and have even watched Japanese routines on www.youtube.com but I can not comment in it from a knowedgable point of view. I suggest edits for this by a Japanese editor more knowledgable about it than me.MsDivagin 20:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

EBA
Do you think that the Elite Beat Agents are worth mentioning in the 'Cheerleading in Popular Culture' section? --66.203.32.62 16:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Does it have anything to do with cheerleading? Maddie  was here  19:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a sentence referencing Ouendan that fits them pretty well:
 * "The games task the cheer squads with assisting people in desperate need of help by cheering them on, giving them the motivation to succeed.

 * If that doesn't sum up EBA, I don't know what does. --66.203.32.62 15:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Toughest and Most Expensive Sport
I removed "It is the toughest and most expensive sport" from the first paragraph. Its supposed reference made no mention of difficulty or expense, and I don't think that there exists a citation that definitely names any sport as the "toughest". If somebody wants to add something in the opening paragraph involving cost, do it with a reference that actually discusses the cost of cheer and not the international rise of it. Kirobaito

POV section needs removal or moving
The entire listing of "USASF World Cheerleading Championships" needs to be removed from this article. What's the point? Perhaps as a separate Wikipedia page, but how is this directly relevant? Why list this but not the entire history of the NCAA championships of cheerleading? What about other organizations? See what I mean? This does not belong in this article. I'll give it a few days (both for discussion/consensus if necessary and for someone to move it to another page) before I cut it. I just wanted to mention it first and throw it out there for thought and comment as necessary. VigilancePrime 06:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Thinkbui 20:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that USASF Worlds deserves a seperate article, however, I must disagree the history of cheerleading in the NCAA in not important, since cheerleading was created at an American college. I must also STRONGLY disagree that is article does not contain a worldwide perspective. Cheerleading as a whole is a very very new phenominon in the rest of the world, and there is really not comparison in skill level currently, also, the IASF, the international governing body for allstar cheerleading was founded as an arm of the USASF, the American governing body for allstar cheerleading. 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)MsDivagin

 * Thinkbui, thank you.
 * MsDivagin, I'm not saying it's not important. I'm saying that to list all the winners of any particular group in the main article is not right to do. NCAA should instead have it's own article ("List of NCAA Cheer Championship winners" or similar) just as any other major organization should.
 * As for the global issue, I hadn't mentioned it at all, but since you bring it up, the UK has a thorough program but it's not that mentioned. I think that there is sufficient reason to keep that tag on the article... it is designed to attract more people to come and work on the article; it's not a knock on the article or its editors.
 * VigilancePrime 03:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * VigilancePrime regarding the NCAA part, to my knowledge Cheerleading as a sport is not sanctioned by the NCAA. I know all of Minnesota's titles, for example, came from UCA/UDA, but I'm not sure if they are the only ones crowning national champions.  I personally don't really know all that much about cheerleading and only know what I know because I've had a number of cheerleader friends and am a BIG Minnesota Golden Gophers fan where this was born, so I lack the kind of insight you might have.  Varsity's UCA/UDA college championship pages only go back to 2002, but I have no idea how much farther back their competitions go.  Maybe that's something you can look into.Thinkbui 04:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cheerleading/Archive 1


text:
User talk:Seindal

Wow! History and computer science - what an interesting combination (maybee you can assist us with some of the history articles...). BTW welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. --maveric149

I like it and I intend to stay. It is kinda fun. Seindal

Great! I'm glad to here that. maveric149

Yep welcome... i just wonder why everyone is interested in sicily and topics related to it ... well benvenuto :)) Zisa

Roman villa
Welcome! welcome! Could you be interested in working an abbreviated description of the late Antique villa at Casale into Roman villa> (I've been looking at your site: I'm going to list in under external links so that there will be no question of vanity!) --Wetman 06:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seindal


text:
Talk:Backgammon

Resolution?
I have been considering how to resolve the differences in the discussion between Bermicourt and me. The above table is an attempt to find a way forward. I have set out six difference ways we could define the scope of the articles here. Bermicourt, please would you confirm which of these you would be satisfied with? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

 * Thank you for making the effort to resolve this in a constructive way and for creating the table which offers some structure around which to continue the discussion. I think the first thing to say is that we have both stressed that articles should be based on WP:RS and not on what editors think, individually or collectively. Our role is to try and present what the sources say. In this case it is complicated because there is, on the one hand, a broad but not entirely uniform scholarly consensus, and on the other widespread public beliefs which also varies, but all too often perpetuates myths such as "backgammon is 5,000 years old" which is patent nonsense unless we redefine backgammon as meaning "all board games".
 * Let me try and summarise what I think reflects the scholarly position together with other WP:RS such as the national backgammon organisations:
 * Backgammon = the game based on the official rules laid down by the WBGF and e.g. the UK and US Backgammon Federations and pretty much as described in the article (although it doesn't state the source for its rules which it should). Fundamental to the game are features like the equipment (tables board, 15 pieces, 2 dice), the starting layout, hitting, contrary movement, the doubling cube and bonuses for gammon and backgammon.
 * Old/Traditional English Backgammon = the game as played in England (and probably elsewhere) until about 1970 as described in the literature.
 * Backgammon variants = Variants that have spun off from the modern game as played in Western countries and routinely described in their literature e.g. Chouette, Nackgammon, Hyper-Backgammon.
 * Tables games = all games played using a tables board (24 points in 4 quadrants). Obviously this includes Backgammon.
 * The source of widespread confusion is bullet 3. Many sources, including some RS, refer to all tables games as "backgammon variants". This is patently not true since tables games were around centuries before backgammon and is frankly an insult to nations that played at tables (games like Nard and probably many of the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern games) before backgammon came along, but my sense is that this should probably be mentioned at both articles.
 * Returning to the table, my thoughts are that:
 * Backgammon: the article should major on the game that the majority of our English readers would recognise i.e. modern Western Backgammon. It should include a brief historical background so people are aware the game is set in a much older and wider context. It should also cover variants of that familiar game. Old English Backgammon could be here unless it grows into a separate linked article.
 * Backgammon variants: if the main article becomes too large, a separate Backgammon variants article would be sensible.
 * Tables game: the article should offer a comprehensive overview of tables games with a detailed history, typology and geographical survey of the main games in each region.
 * Individual games: these may have their own articles which should not just be a summary of their rules, but cover the rich historical, geographical, cultural and linguistic aspects of these games. This is an important area for future work but probably requires help from nationals where those games are played.
 * So looking at the table, I'm probably hovering mostly over C. And I've been thinking about your earlier statement about the national games and think that it's perfectly okay to say "Tavli is the national board game of Greece" and then explain the link to Backgammon. And in the tables game article it's okay to say "in many countries the national board game is their local equivalent of backgammon, for example, Tavli in Greece and Cyprus, Tawula in Turkey..." The rest of the article will explore the character of each one.
 * Those are my initial thoughts - I hope that helps. Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with C as a reasonable compromise. What I cannot accept is any reliance on the non-WP:RS website bkgm.com to define the games. Some examples:
 * https://bkgm.com/variants/SheshBesh.html This is backgammon.
 * https://bkgm.com/variants/Takhteh.html This is backgammon.
 * https://bkgm.com/variants/Tawula.html This is not backgammon, but nor is the generic term Tawula used primarily to describe this game in Turkey
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I share some of your reservations about bkgm.com, but they do give references for their rules. Some of them are RS, some are not. For example, Shesh Besh and Takhteh are based on emails and I would want independent RS to verify them. The Tawula references are RS, but not all that recent. I have created a Tawula article mainly using Bell for the rules, although Murray seems substantially the same. The game is called both Tawula and Tavla in English sources and both are mentioned in the lede. We can always move it to Tavla; I think that is more common. Bermicourt (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Tawula

 * I have made some edits to the Tawula article. I object strongly to the article name, as it is misleading. The name Tawula/Tavli in Turkish is usually taken to mean (modern Western) backgammon. The Turkish Wikipedia article Tavli verifies this, and we can ask Turkish wikipedians if you want further confirmation. This is highlighted by the mistaken photos which were added in to the article, presumably based on their filenames, despite the fact that on close inspection they were not the game being described. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Another proof: https://twitter.com/search?q=tavla&f=video
 * This link shows all videos on twitter where the tweet includes the word tavla. They are all playing standard backgammon. I did the same for Tawula but because that is an obsolete romanization, there are hardly any relevant hits.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag in accordance with WP:WTRMT as no discussion was started. However, as the article is based on three historical RS, I've also modified it to describe the game as historical and to say that it may have been superseded by MWB. That latter statement needs citing; I'm only taking your word for it. So perhaps you could find suitable RS which support the argument that MWB is now the national board game of Turkey (and they need to demonstrate that by "Backgammon" or "Tavla" they are actually talking about the game played with modern Western rules and not the local version) and ideally RS that demonstrate Tawula as described in the article is extinct or rarely played nowadays if that's the case. Videos on Twitter and journalistic articles are not generally considered RS, but books or papers by Turkish game authors would be. Bermicourt (talk) 09:08, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Bermicourt, we seem to be talking past each other. I said "I object strongly to the article name, as it is misleading. The name Tawula/Tavli in Turkish is usually taken to mean (modern Western) backgammon."
 * I did not say: "the game [is] historical and [has] been superseded by MWB", nor that "[the game] described in the article is extinct or rarely played nowadays". We don't have WP:RS evidence about that either way, although I noted that you made an unsourced claim that the game the article describes is more popular than MWB in Turkey. Did you have any evidence to support this?
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Some more evidence:
 *
 *
 * These appear to be Turkey's leading Tavla clubs / competitions. You will see that the game is backgammon. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to Talk:Tawula. Editors are invited to comment at that page. Bermicourt (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Obscure descriptions
I suspect that the description of the rules will be unintelligible to anyone who doesn't already know the game. For example, it states that: " The points form a continuous track in the shape of a horseshoe, and are numbered from 1 to 24." Huh? The illustrations of actual backgammon boards, and other images online, don't show anything of the kind. The article includes a diagram showing a 'horseshoe' track, with numbers placed against the 'points', but the source for this is not stated, and the 'horseshoe' seems to be a complete invention. 2A00:23C8:7907:4B01:F85A:2758:922A:5E96 (talk) 15:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

First rules of Backgammon
the reason I reverted your good faith edit was because it claimed the first rules of Backgammon were written by Vaughan in 1931. In fact the first known rules were by Francis Willughby c. 1672 and Charles Cotton in 1674. Rules for modern Backgammon emerged in the 19th century and the last major change, the doubling cube was already recorded in several rule sets published in 1930. So I don't doubt the existence of the 1931 rules but they weren't the first. Bermicourt (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 * One clarification: I did not say written, I said published. I am not an expert here but I believe the Laws of Backgammon has significance to the history of the game. Scribner's and Sons published Fitzgerald and Hemingway in the 20's. Their involvement in publishing the backgammon document in 1931 with the prowess of the Racquet and Tennis Club behind it must have some significance to backgammon's evolution. You appear to be an expert. I will leave it to you to include it in the wikipedia history and am happy to send you a copy if you are interested.
 * Incidentally, there is also lore in NYC the doubling cube may actually have been created at the Racquet and Tennis Club. It was a huge game at the club in the 1920's and remains so to this day. Mwcc1919 (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

 * The history of Backgammon is not well understood, even by experienced players and game authors. And, as in other games, rules are published as authoritative when, in fact, they have limited or no authority. A good example in another field are the so-called Official Rules of Card Games, published by the US Playing Card Company since 1887. It's a handy book of general rules for games known in the US, but "official"? Who says? In this case, sets of "Laws of Backgammon" were published from at least 1775 (Hoyle's Games Improved). However, there seems to have been a flurry of activity in the US in 1930/31 to regularise rules between clubs. Thus in December 1930, Vanity Fair published "The Official Laws of Backgammon", a bold claim since the article makes clear that these were just the rules "substantially in force at many fashionable clubs" in places like Philadelphia, New York and Chicago. Shortly thereafter, Walter Richard's Complete Backgammon was brought out in 1931 whose work "is the first to contain the official laws of backgammon just adopted by a congress of the leading clubs." Another bold claim since they were only approved by around 25 of theses clubs, presumably in New York. The rules published by Wheaton Vaughan in 1931 are cited by Jacoby & Jacoby as the basis for their chapter "The Official Laws of Backgammon" in 1973, but also mention that Oswald Jacoby, father of one of the authors, was a member of the original committee, so perhaps a little subjective. A quick comparison of all these "official" laws with those on the websites of the US and UK Backgammon Federations shows that they are all differently worded. I'm not saying Vaughan's "laws" weren't significant in some way. But was their significance local, regional or worldwide? Was it only a way of regularising the rules between a group of clubs that played one another? How were the rules developed that are now issued by the various national federations and which are "authoritative" within their own countries? Bermicourt (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Equity
For analyzing checker play or cube decisions, the concept of equity is fundamental but I'm not seeing it treated in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. A brief definition and discussion would be helpful. Normalized equity and Equivalent to Money Game (EMG) for match play should be included. Jeremy Bagai's article (http://www.fortuitouspress.com/emg) could serve as a reference.

I'm not sure where the best place to put it in the article. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 * That sounds like an aspect of computerised Backgammon which is covered under the section entitled "Software". And if that section grows much more it probably ought to be spun off as a separate article. Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * While we now use computer software to compute equity, equity is a basic concept that predates the bot era. As we say in the article:
 * A doubling cube was first introduced in the 1920s in New York City among members of gaming clubs in the Lower East Side. The cube required players not only to select the best move in a given position, but also to estimate the probability of winning from that position, transforming backgammon into the expected value-driven game played in the 20th and 21st centuries.
 * In unlimited (money) play, equity is simply the expected value of the position. I think a brief subsection under strategy and tactics would be the right place to introduce it. The software section seems to mostly address the history of backgammon software, not how it works.
 * In coming days I'll see if I can work something up in my sandbox. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gammon and Backgammon
There's no change in meaning in my edit. The version you restored contravenes multiple MOS entries: It also must be emphasized that a gammon and a backgammon, as game results, are mutually exclusive. As-is, the text could be interpreted to mean that a player getting a backgammon gets points for both a gammon and a backgammon. Also, "in the process of bearing off" is too vague as it does not explicitly cover the situation where the loser's last move is to move their last pieces not in their home table into their home table; they can then be said to have begun the "process" of bearing off which is not the definition of a game, which requires at least one stone of the loser's to be born off. Your revert makes no sense and is therefore undone. I'm quite frankly appalled that an editor of your experience would openly and blatantly contravene multiple core style guidelines instead of working to improve the actual text.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS – no reason to have the conjunctions in all-caps
 * MOS:SPELL09 – it should be "one point", not "1 point"
 * MOS:WORDSASWORDS – "backgammon" and "gammon" should be italicized, not in quotes
 * WP:EPSTYLE – "called" is not encyclopedic.
 * Please try to follow WP:BRD. If your bold edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss, not re-revert - that just risks a pointless WP:EDITWAR. That said, I actually don't have too much of an issue with your changes having had a second look. My comments are:
 * MOS:CAPS - I think the point of the "AND" was to emphasise to readers that both conditions need to be fulfilled. I agree that we are encouraged to do this using italics and propose that as the solution.
 * MOS:SPELL09 – I think that's open to interpretation e.g. "Sport scores... should be given as figures, even in the zero to nine range".
 * MOS:WORDSASWORDS – "backgammon" and "gammon" italicized. Fair enough.
 * WP:EPSTYLE – don't agree that "called" is not encyclopedic and the guidance doesn't say that either. It is a fact that certain feats are "called" gammon, backgammon, etc.
 * Have you read the sources to ensure your edits don't conflict with what they're saying?
 * I think we can agree some positive changes if we work together. Bermicourt (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t need to read those particular sources. I quickly Google searched backgammon and gammon and nothing is wrong with what I wrote. For SPELL09, that exception applies only within a game result. It does not apply to point values for units of scoring:
 * Basketball — two and three point shots and one point for a free throw
 * American football — touchdown is worth six points
 * Roller derby — grand slam is worth four points, formerly five
 * I would not be so picky if you weren’t restoring the clear WP:BADEMPHASIS, and also since you don’t overall take much issue with my edits now I don’t get your need to try to filibuster here, so I’ve undone your edit again and request you at the least leave the formatting fixes in.—Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid your comment that you "don't need to read sources" is entirely at odds with encyclopaedic editing. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS and it is clearly not sensible to change cited text without checking those sources; otherwise how can you possibly know that your revised text is supported by those sources?
 * You also might also want to consider whether re-reverting text twice because there is "nothing wrong with what I wrote" is in line with Wikipedia policy on reaching consensus via discussion.
 * Finally, please avoid personal attacks. Querying an edit and inviting a discussion is not filibustering. And if you don't understand other editors ("I don't get your need...), why don't you ask appropriate questions?
 * Your approach seems to be "I don't understand your perspective, but I'm right, regardless of the sources and so I'm going to re-impose my edits rather than waste time discussing them." I thought I'd offered some common ground and openness to discussing the rest, so I'm a bit surprised by your reaction considering your clear experience as an editor here. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree the original wording was not great, so I've reviewed the source text and re-written it to a) make it more succinct and b) reflect what the sources say much more closely. I've gone for italicisation, which interestingly reflects one of the sources anyway, and I've removed the the caps and quotes. The word "called" is not used. So I've incorporated 90% of your concerns and hope the result is now an improvement we can live with. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Backgammon