text:
Talk:Friends

Requested move 2 June 2023

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There are different proposals raised in in the discussion: On (TV series) vs (1994 TV series), as raised by various participants, pageviews for this series is significantly higher than the other numerous series, and in examining the charts, have been consistently so despite the introduction of newer serieses of the same name. Therefore WP:PDAB would be applicable, and the article would have been moved to (TV series). However in examining the various arguments, I find that the those opposing a move of any kind holds stronger: statistics (|Friends_(disambiguation)|Friends_(2002_TV_series)|Friends_(2021_TV_program)|Friends_(Polish_TV_series)|The_Friends_(TV_series)|Friends_(1971_film)|Friendship pageviews between this series and other series similarly named, and the concept friendship (consolidated); wikinav; google search results ranking) clearly demonstrated that this series is the primary topic of 'Friends'. As mentioned by various participants, there are also hatnotes pointing to 'Friendship' and the dab page and the arrangement is sufficient. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) To move as proposed;
 * 2) To move to ;
 * 3) To remain status quo.

Friends → Friends (TV series) – Love the show, but "Friends" should redirect to Friendship. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – Material  Works  16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the record, this was discussed at Talk:Friends (disambiguation) in 2019, so basically I'll repeat myself. This page gets millions of views per year and so I think it is what readers want for this term and moving it would not improve the encyclopedia. I didn't support the move in the last discussion, but the DAB page as primary, I can see why someone would think that. The WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT proposal here is an AWFUL idea, this page is extremely highly viewed, way more than Friendship, no evidence anyone would want that! --Quiz shows 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Quiz shows Look at WP:NWFCTM. What's more significant, friendship which has been around for millions of years, or a 30 year old TV show. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 16:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) - due to other series with that name (WP:INCDAB), and per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (everyday usage and long-term significance). A TV show never deserves primary status over an everyday term from which it inherits its meaning - view counts be damned. Just like any corporate creation, we should follow the apple/Apple Inc. precedent. I am fine with waiting to repoint the leftover redirect for 30 days after the TV show article has been moved, to allow external search engines to catch up. After this move, this page will still get is "millions of views" because that's how external search engines work. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This discussion has been had before. I don't think anything major has changed in four years, and the page views for this being the primary topic is convincing enough for me.  Ss  112   18:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A wise man said at the previous RM: "Nothing astonishing here as far as I can see. Friends was viewed five million times last year; its daily average is almost as much as the total amount of views Friends (disambiguation) gets in twelve months. A roadblock isn't warranted here." I don't see any reason to have changed my mind. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Page views aren't important. Think of the reason why the show is called what it is. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Friends should direct to friendship or Quakers.  The TV show may be currently popular but has neither the "long-term significance" nor "educational value" to be deemed the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per PT2. Walrasiad (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already said I dislike the programme, but to say is not true - it ended in 2004.  And yet you admit that it's  - which is not bad for a show that ended 19 years ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose hatnote is sufficient for those looking for friendship and non plural friend redirects directly there. WikiVirusC (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Friends (1994 TV series) and move DAB to base name. There is no clear primary topic between the 1994 TV series, generic meaning and Quakers.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support renaming, use "Friends (1994 TV series)"; clearly the common noun is the common meaning. And as this TV show is so old, many zoomers don't even know it exists; though many boomers also don't know it exists, since it was mostly relevant to that generation that grew up with it, instead of being an intergenerational TV show -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Many zoomers don't even know it exists I was born in 2000 and a significant amount of my peers are fans of or have seen the show. After all, it still airs on TV and it's available on streaming platforms. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I would love to see the article (and everything relating to the series) deleted, but it's not going to happen. The TV series is clearly the common/primary topic.  Just google "friends" and - certainly for my results - I have to wait until page 3 before I get anything that isn't related to the show.  It's insidious, but that's how it is.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chaheel Riens WP:NWFCTM Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The term under discussion is "Friends", not "Friendship", and there's a subtle but important distinction. In this context, the answer is - sadly - the TV show.  Incidentally, be careful replying with essentially the same response to multiple people - it could be construed as WP:BLUDGEON.  Not there yet, but just be aware of it.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, but move to Friends (1994 TV series) as above. TV show is not primary for friends. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose As others said this is the primary topic you say friends most people would think of this show instead of their actual friends Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Fanoflionking Your metric literally is what WP:NWFCTM says not to use.
 * Friendship as a concept, which has been around since the dawn of human civilization. Or a 30 year old TV show from America? What's more significant in the long term, do you think? 90.255.15.152 (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this is not taking up the primary topic at friend/friendship. Two things can coexist at singular and plural names. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In principle, I'd rather we use "(TV series)" as a disambiguator over "(1994 TV series)" as I think this passes WP:PDAB. I otherwise would support in principle, but worry that this may end up benefiting very few people in practice. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 03:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If I was to go out and say friends to 100 people I bet at least 90 of them will say something about the show this is one of the most well know shows ever Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that depends where you live. Walrasiad (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Support. "Friends" is a word like "apple". Srnec (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:PLURALPT. People will probably type "friend" if looking for the concept. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Relisting to get a clearer consensus. – Material  Works  16:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Television has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Comedy has been notified of this discussion. – Material  Works  16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Support a show not matter how popular is not more significant than the concept of friends—blindlynx 18:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for all of the reasons already outlined – it gets very tedious how many voters ignore that hatnotes are a perfectly acceptable solution in a case like this. And especially oppose Friends (1994 TV series) which is a patently absurd suggestion – if this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (and, FTR, I agree that it is), it is absolutely the "primary subtopic" by any reasonable, rational definition. So oppose, though Friends (TV series) is the correct the fallback position. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Facetious comment - what really annoys me is when I talk about the Friends episode on TV last night, and everybody asks me "the Korean reality show, or the 2002 drama?"  It's obvious I'm referring to the 2014 reality show instead.  Obviously.  Who's even heard of the other show outside of America anyway?  Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll post a serious comment in reply to this – it's really unfortunate that there are two (almost three) South Korean series with this title as well: it would be much simpler if there were two American series, and one Polish and one South Korean series... But page views leave no doubt here: |Friends_(disambiguation)|Friends_(2002_TV_series)|Friends_(2021_TV_program)|Friends_(Polish_TV_series)|The_Friends_(TV_series)|Friends_(1971_film) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per the second criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which explicitly claims that we should consider long-term educational significance. NGL, I'm fairly confident that friendship is more significant overall than a TV show. Red   Slash  21:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That article is at Friendship, not "Friend" or "Friends". That's more than a "WP:SMALLDETAILS" difference. And, again, there is a hatnote, just in case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really a case of WP:SMALLDETAILS as the concept is still commonly called "Friend(s)" which is why Friend is a primary redirect. This isn't like say Crickets where the plural has a significantly different distinct meaning. The DAB page has some 97 uses plus 4 in the "See also" and has 3 common meanings, 1994 TV series, concept and Quakers. Putting the top 3 like they already are similar to Mercury and Lincoln would surely be more helpful than having a primary topic.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 16:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not cite the WP:SMALLDETAILS to me, . I was there when it was written. Face-smile.svg JK, no, but seriously and with respect... as I see it, this isn't a "small details" because "friends" is a perfectly valid way to refer to the topic of "friendship". This is more akin to having eggs redirect to eggs as food rather than to egg; there are a lot of different ways to refer to the concept of friendship. Red   Slash  18:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if I were to concede that most people typing in "Friends" aren't looking for the U.S. TV series (and, FTR, I'm not conceding that), it's still there in the hatnote. I think too many people get hung up on the idea that "everyone needs to get everywhere they're intending to in 'one click'" on Wikipedia – I personally think that "two-click solutions" (e.g. via hatnotes) are perfectly acceptable, and I suspect most of the readership feels the same way. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is still a very, very popular TV show, and the "concept" of friendship is comparatively less interesting.  |Friends Friendship is blown out of the water in pageviews and I strongly suspect that "Friendship" is getting some redirects from "Friend" that really want something else.  SnowFire (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "comparatively less interesting" is meaningless. 90.255.15.152 (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. It was said to stop bludgeoning the discussion. 2. They are referring to what is apparently less interesting to site visitors, not themselves. I think most people know that discussions shouldn't be about what is interesting to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Friends as the tv show, with friendship for the concept, makes sense. The text at the top of the page helps anyone who is on the wrong page. 2A00:23C8:185:B501:4484:7CDB:ABD1:DEF4 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose for the various reasons stated above. The hatnote already tells readers if they're looking for the idea of "friendship" itself or other related terms. The show is still very popular worldwide and sees much more page views than the concept of friendship. Outside of Wikipedia, even Googling "Friends" will bring up many results related to the tv series (if that's worth noting). Clear Looking Glass (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Neutral on the proposed move, but oppose a move to Friends (1994 TV series) as unnecessarily WP:PRECISE. The 1994 TV series receives 148 times as many monthly pageviews as all other TV series titled "Friends" combined (|Friends_(1979_TV_series)|Friends_(2002_TV_series)|Friends_(Polish_TV_series)|Friends_(2021_TV_program) stats link), which places it well within normal bounds for an acceptable WP:PDAB. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose; yes, pageviews aren't everything, but when the TV series gets almost 8x as many views as the concept of Friendship since July 2015, I find it hard to make a case for a primary redirect to Friendship. The argument for a DAB page is a bit stronger with the existence of Quakers, but it's |Friends|Quakers still not very close. I just don't think a different setup from what we currently have would actually aid our readers, especially with the hatnotes in place. Wikinav's graphs are only half working right now, but over the past two months, Friendship isn't even in the top 10 most outgoing pageviews from Friends. (The 1994 TV series disambiguation is even worse – this is literally the exact situation WP:PDAB is meant for?) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  03:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Implied? Should be reliably sourced not implied
"It is heavily implied in the spin-off series, Joey, that Rachel married Ross after the series finale." Please remove this sentence from the article. The information in this encyclopedia should be reliably sourced WP:RS not "implied", not even "heavily implied". -- 109.79.65.30 (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

 * @109.79.65.30 don't be daft. Nuances, emotions and implications cannot be "reliably sourced'
 * Would you remove Father Christmas from Wiki as he cannot be "reliably sourced" 209.93.179.192 (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, reliable sourcing still applies to fiction. Married or not married is factual information and facts must be reliably sourced. A general opinion that the characters appeared to be in love or still a couple would be an opinion, and even then that should be attributed to the reviewer, not the own interpretation of a wikipedia editor that something was "heavily implied". Facts need to be backed by sources. -- 109.79.69.216 (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2023
Reunion series after 17 years. Jzheng66 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2023
Grammar: change "tightly wound" to "tightly-wound" (in the description of Monica) 2A00:23C4:F902:3E01:EC07:FD17:4401:F29A (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: MOS:HYPHEN. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

About the show
This show starts off when Ross, Pheobe, Monica, Joey, and Chandler meet Rachel who was a high school friend of Monica's. Rachel ran away from her wedding and seeks shelter in Monica's apartment. The story continues, showing us what happens in their lives. Although this show is good, it is not the best. It has a slow plot and and is not very enjoyable to watch and is overrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.205.249.128 (talk) 11:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

 * I disagree with many people that say things like that. I think friends is a great show, but you can have your own opinion. 🤷🏼♀ 2603:900A:2007:8474:1897:3314:46E8:AB72 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Friends


text:
Byte order mark

The byte-order mark (BOM) is a particular usage of the special Unicode character code,, whose appearance as a magic number at the start of a text stream can signal several things to a program reading the text:
 * the byte order, or endianness, of the text stream in the cases of 16-bit and 32-bit encodings;
 * the fact that the text stream's encoding is Unicode, to a high level of confidence;
 * which Unicode character encoding is used.

BOM use is optional. Its presence interferes with the use of UTF-8 by software that does not expect non-ASCII bytes at the start of a file but that could otherwise handle the text stream.

Unicode can be encoded in units of 8-bit, 16-bit, or 32-bit integers. For the 16- and 32-bit representations, a computer receiving text from arbitrary sources needs to know which byte order the integers are encoded in. The BOM is encoded in the same scheme as the rest of the document and becomes a Universal Character Set characters Unicode code point if its bytes are swapped. Hence, the process accessing the text can examine these first few bytes to determine the endianness, without requiring some contract or metadata outside of the text stream itself. Generally the receiving computer will swap the bytes to its own endianness, if necessary, and would no longer need the BOM for processing.

The byte sequence of the BOM differs per Unicode encoding (including ones outside the Unicode standard such as UTF-7, see table below), and none of the sequences is likely to appear at the start of text streams stored in other encodings. Therefore, placing an encoded BOM at the start of a text stream can indicate that the text is Unicode and identify the encoding scheme used. This use of the BOM is called a "Unicode signature".

Usage
The BOM is, simply, the Unicode codepoint, encoded in the current encoding. A text file beginning with the bytes  suggests that the file is encoded in big-endian UTF-16.

The name ZWNBSP should be used if the BOM appears in the middle of a data stream. Unicode says it should be interpreted as a normal codepoint (namely a word joiner), not as a BOM. Since Unicode 3.2, this usage has been deprecated in favor of.

The Unicode 1.0 name for this codepoint is also

UTF-8
The UTF-8 representation of the BOM is the (hexadecimal) byte sequence.

The Unicode Standard permits the BOM in UTF-8, but does not require or recommend its use. UTF-8 always has the same byte order, so its only use in UTF-8 is to signal at the start that the text stream is encoded in UTF-8, or that it was converted to UTF-8 from a stream that contained an optional BOM. The standard also does not recommend removing a BOM when it is there, so that round-tripping between encodings does not lose information, and so that code that relies on it continues to work. The IETF recommends that if a protocol either (a) always uses UTF-8, or (b) has some other way to indicate what encoding is being used, then it "SHOULD forbid use of U+FEFF as a signature." An example of not following this recommendation is the IETF Syslog protocol which requires text to be in UTF-8 and also requires the BOM.

Not using a BOM allows text to be backwards-compatible with software designed for extended ASCII. For instance many programming languages permit non-ASCII bytes in string literals but not at the start of the file.

A BOM is unnecessary for detecting UTF-8 encoding. UTF-8 is a sparse encoding: a large fraction of possible byte combinations do not result in valid UTF-8 text. Binary data and text in any other encoding are likely to contain byte sequences that are invalid as UTF-8, so existence of such invalid sequences indicates the file is not UTF-8, while lack of invalid sequences is a very strong indication the text is UTF-8. Practically the only exception is text containing only ASCII-range bytes, as this may be a non-ASCII 7-bit encoding, but this is unlikely in any modern data and even then the difference from ASCII is minor (such as changing '\' to '¥').

Microsoft compilers and interpreters, and many pieces of software on Microsoft Windows such as Notepad (prior to Windows 10 Build 1903 ) treat the BOM as a required magic number rather than use heuristics. These tools add a BOM when saving text as UTF-8, and cannot interpret UTF-8 unless the BOM is present or the file contains only ASCII. Windows PowerShell (up to 5.1) will add a BOM when it saves UTF-8 XML documents. However, PowerShell Core 6 has added a  switch on some cmdlets called utf8NoBOM so that document can be saved without BOM. Google Docs also adds a BOM when converting a document to a plain text file for download.

UTF-16
In UTF-16, a BOM may be placed as the first bytes of a file or character stream to indicate the endianness (byte order) of all the 16-bit code units of the file or stream. If an attempt is made to read this stream with the wrong endianness, the bytes will be swapped, thus delivering the character, which is defined by Unicode as a "" that should never appear in the text.

 * If the 16-bit units are represented in big-endian byte order ("UTF-16BE"), the BOM is the (hexadecimal) byte sequence
 * If the 16-bit units use little-endian order ("UTF-16LE"), the BOM is the (hexadecimal) byte sequence

For the IANA registered charsets UTF-16BE and UTF-16LE, a byte-order mark should not be used because the names of these character sets already determine the byte order.

If there is no BOM, it is possible to guess whether the text is UTF-16 and its byte order by searching for ASCII characters (i.e. a 0 byte adjacent to a byte in the 0x20-0x7E range, also 0x0A and 0x0D for CR and LF). A large number (i.e. far higher than random chance) in the same order is a very good indication of UTF-16 and whether the 0 is in the even or odd bytes indicates the byte order. However, this can result in both false positives and false negatives.

Clause D98 of conformance (section 3.10) of the Unicode standard states, "The UTF-16 encoding scheme may or may not begin with a BOM. However, when there is no BOM, and in the absence of a higher-level protocol, the byte order of the UTF-16 encoding scheme is big-endian." Whether or not a higher-level protocol is in force is open to interpretation. Files local to a computer for which the native byte ordering is little-endian, for example, might be argued to be encoded as UTF-16LE implicitly. Therefore, the presumption of big-endian is widely ignored. The W3C/WHATWG encoding standard used in HTML5 specifies that content labelled either "utf-16" or "utf-16le" are to be interpreted as little-endian "to deal with deployed content". However, if a byte-order mark is present, then that BOM is to be treated as "more authoritative than anything else".

UTF-32
Although a BOM could be used with UTF-32, this encoding is rarely used for transmission. Otherwise the same rules as for UTF-16 are applicable.

The BOM for little-endian UTF-32 is the same pattern as a little-endian UTF-16 BOM followed by a UTF-16 NUL character, an unusual example of the BOM being the same pattern in two different encodings. Programmers using the BOM to identify the encoding will have to decide whether UTF-32 or UTF-16 with a NUL first character is more likely.

Byte-order marks by encoding
This table illustrates how the BOM is represented as a byte sequence in various encodings and how those sequences might appear in a text editor that is interpreting each byte as a legacy encoding (Windows-1252 and caret notation for the C0 controls):

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

title: Byte order mark


text:
Talk:New Castle

I think we should either:
 * 1) remove the "Newcastle" entries in the list
 * 2) or merge the list from here into Newcastle and redirect

I chose the separation method. Newcastle and New Castle are mutually linked, and each city appears on one page or the other but not on both. --Heron

title: Talk:New Castle


text:
Talk:Tromeo and Juliet

Cinema verite
The film is popular among cinema verite fans,

 * I would have thought that a genre film laden with special effects and unrealistic situations would be the very antithesis of cinema verite. --Brion 21:51 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Saying that this film "was the first larger budgeted attempt at movie making" for Troma is incorrect. According to director Lloyd Kaufman the budget on this film was remarkably low, this he said in his book All I Needed To Know About Filmmaking I Learned From The Toxic Avenger. Tromatic 16:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

What the heck is "cinema gloritiso"? A Google search for "gloritiso" currently returns nothing but this particular article. --164.76.162.246 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

--- Don't know why "cult films" was taken out. This movie played for over a year midnight screenings at the Sunset 5 in Los Angeles, and continues to play midnight shows around the world. It is far more a cult film than many other in that section.

Sensorium 00:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

---

"The movie makers attempted to use gore and sexuality to shock the viewer in much the same way as they believed actors might have done in Shakespeare's time (with proper adjustments to content to suit the times, updating the fashion and setting to contemporary needs, also in Shakespeare's tradition)."

I've found some cites... hahaha. (From the William Shakespeare article, both having citation:)

"Romeo and Juliet, the famous romantic tragedy of sexually charged adolescence, love, and death"

"In King Lear, the old king commits the tragic error of giving up his powers, triggering scenes which lead to the murder of his daughter and the torture and blinding of the Duke of Gloucester. According to the critic Frank Kermode, 'The play offers neither its good characters nor its audience any relief from its cruelty'"

And a page showing the filmakers intention can be seen here: http://www.troma.com/movies/tromeoandjuliet/

King Lear was actually banned from the English stage from 1788 to 1820 for sex, violence and obscene language.

User:99.235.201.181 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare's work was not more violent than his contemporaries, and none of the sources you cite claim that it was. If you want excessively violent sixteenth century drama, try The Spanish Tragedy, which is twice as bloody as anything Shakespeare ever put on the stage.  His primary motivation was not to shock, and none of the sources you cite claim that it was.  King Lear wasn't suppressed because it was violent, it was suppressed because its portrayal of a mentally unwell king was seen as reflecting badly on the reigning monarch, George III, and none of the sources you cite claim otherwise.  None of the sources that you cite even claim that the film's creators believed that Shakespeare was unusually violent, or that they created this film in belief that they were being true to Shakespeare's vision of Romeo and Juliet.  The source that you cited doesn't mention "Tromeo and Juliet", it doesn't mention "Romeo and Juliet," and it doesn't even mention violent content in Shakespeare.  It isn't even an article; just a little opinion piece for Banned Books Week. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Though you have some correct points, "Titus Andronicus" was a favorite of Shakespeare's at its release, and was known for being particularly bloody, featuring incest, rape, and excessive amounts of murder. Titus even murders every child a woman has, feeding her two of them as food at a banquet, before murdering his own daughter and everyone at the table. It is over the top, Shakespeare meant for it to be, and Shakespeare's audience loved it for being so. So before you go spouting absolutes and acting like an authority on all things Shakespeare, read! If you need sources leave a message here and I'll be glad to find them in my off time, because you, sir, were an a-hole, and very rude to that person above, so I would love to waste my time just to prove you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.82.179 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

 * Ouch. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

 * .... and yet its still in the lead of the article! +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

SHAKESPEAREAN VERSE ? First off, it's blank verse, and if this "And all of our hearts free to let all things base go/As taught by Juliet and her Tromeo" is supposed to be an example of their, the authors at Troma, "Shakespearean verse" then they don't know how to write blank verse. The first line has 12 syllables with 5 stresses, an un-iambic rhythm, and is in fact poorly written prose, that is, the rhythm of it is non-existent and the writers obviously didn't know, or didn't care, about metre, and they didn't even avoiding clashing stresses like most good prose writers. The second line is possible as Iambic pentameter, but the two unstressed words "and her" side by side are not typical for Shakespeare's early blank verse, which followed closely Iambic Pentameter, having 10 syllables, 5 of which are stressed in a pattern of unstressed stress, whereas this last line has 11 syllables, 5 of which are stressed. I think this is a great example of the ignorance behind many articles on Wikipedia. If you don't know about a subject, don't write about it, especially something like verse, you're just adding further confusion to an already hopelessly confused subject.And if you need a "source"--though I would say this is common knowledge-- go to any, ANY, book on metre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.82.179 (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Positive spin
Recent changes are waaaay too positive.

I'm repairing the worst, being the removal of the only sourced content of the page, and the description of someone who gave a negative review as:

a relatively unknown man with little, if any, ties to the entertainment industry

...I mean, really!!!

I've let most of it stand, of course, but I really would like to see some sources. AndyJones (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that a Google search for your 'Daniel Rosenthal' heralds NO result for any authors, film critics, or anyone in the entertainment industry, I question whether this man exists or if it's, in reality, yourself, someone who was pissed off by this flick and chose to express their hatred on WikiPedia. Either or, the 'reception' section needs a bad review (as they're rather hard to come by on this film), so I'll let it stand....even though the second, previously deleted part of his "review" merely states random scenes in the film rather than actually expressing some form of opinion. Cheers, SkippyFluffernutter.

 * Doh. AndyJones (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's the UK Google. UK don't count. This is an AMERICAN film, buddy; in ENGLISH. Jeez. -SantaFlan

Inappropriate links
Linking the names of characters in this movie to their parallels in the Shakespeare original -- without any indication that the linked articles have nothing to do with this movie -- is misleading to the point of dishonesty. I think a more appropriate way of doing this -- if the links are necessary at all -- would be to add in parentheses that a character is a loose parody of the Shakespeare character, with the Shakespeare character's name then linked to the article about that character. As it stands now, casual readers are going to click a link expecting to find more about a Tromeo & Juliet character, only to be treated instead to a seemingly unrelated article with a completely different title. In some respects, this is browser hijacking. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Though I personally don't see it as that big an issue, and I doubt any casual reader would actually expect there to be entries on "Tromeo" characters, I created a newer, more detailed three-column chart that will hopefully make things go a bit smoother, yes?Skibz777 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reviews
"New York Times", "Variety Magazine" and "USA Today" are quoted in the text but not cited. I hate to be accusatory, but it looks like the quotes might have been taken directly from the movie poster at face value. I did find the NYT review and it does, indeed, include the line "there is something goofily exhilarating in the spectacle of all the staple images of teen-age sex and slasher movies transformed into farce.":

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B03E3DF1231F93BA15751C0A961958260

but I haven't found the other two. They should probably be removed until verified and cited. Originalname37  (Talk?)  15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tromeo and Juliet


text:
Talk:Semiconductor device

Unclassified
I'm going to stick this link in the notes here; I think its cool; way cool. This is an example of a hobbyist using iron pyrite as a semiconductor for an oscillating circuit. - David M

Thyristor and SCR is the same thing. SCRs and triacs have 3 terminals (but 4 layers instead of 3 for a transistor) -- Egil 14:48 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

This phrasing seems a bit patronizing for encyclopedia prose! Perhaps we can come up with something better? "in a sense that requires some knowledge of semiconductor physics to understand, a hole is the absence of an electron." --Christofurio 14:19, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. Removed it.--Light current 02:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

History section - free addition
I noticed this page did not have a history section and thought the history copied from transistor would fit better here. We're trying to get rid of it anyway! So if you think it can stay here, you can have it free!.--Light current 01:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't there be some citations here? This history section cites no sources and could be more specific. Any thoughts? Digivation 02:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Origin of American type numbers- no of junctions?
Anyone know the reason for the 1N, 2N, 3N designations on diodes and transistors etc. My theory is that its to do with the number of junctions in the device. Any confirmations??--Light current 00:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Best not to have theories. The prefix digit 1, 2, 3, in the JEDEC type number is one less than the number of leads on the device - so a dual-gate MOSFET, which has no junctions at all, will be a 3NXXX device, because it has 4 leads.  I've no idea why "N". --Wtshymanski 13:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Makes some sense! But it does happen to equal the no of junctions in bipolar devices (which came before mosfets)--Light current 13:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I was around before there were more than 2 junctions. It is an interesting coincidence, but the number refers to the quantity of leads available outside the package -1 (discrete devices). With some packages a lead might be available both as a tab and as a lead. 208.106.20.67 06:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Our typical reader
The article presents information. But would it be helpful to a typical reader? The article is informationally dense, terms are used which an electronic engineer or technician would know and would have no trouble with. Terms such a "discrete component" and thermionic device" are introduced one after another in rapid sequence. But a person who has heard the term "Semiconductor device" and has little electronic education would have a hard time reading and understanding.  Could we discuss a method to make a more flowing, readable article ? Terryeo 16:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * This sounds like a perfect opportunity for you to be bold and improve the article!

 * Atlant 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree. Go for it.  An anonymous edit that I mostly reverted was a bit of an attempt, but it removed everything that made the lead paragraph meaningful and substituted incorrect simplified language that meant almost nothing.  I'm sure you'll do better. Dicklyon 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

3D images
What's with those images? They seem to have extreme verical exaggeration, show not much structure other than contact plugs and poly gates, and have no sensible structure below the surface of the silicon. Surely we can come up with something more meaningful. Dicklyon 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If you can get me some GDSII and the associated fab layer equations and thicknesses, I'd be more than happy to create whatever picture you'd like. Don't forget though, that most of the interesting detail (depending on what you consider interesting) is hidden by the routing layers, which is why they were stripped in the original pictures. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Carron (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

 * I might be able to get some SEM images of the III-V transistors and MEMS I'll be working on this semester... -- mattb

an image is nothing but some refection of any object or thing.3D images is a topic with much interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.49.227 (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Alan Herries Wilson
So someone removed my unexplained addition of a "see also" link to Alan Herries Wilson. I thought the rationale for this would be obvious to anyone reading that bio, but here it is: the History of semiconductor device development section begins with the Cat's-whisker detector and Metal rectifier - next we jump World War II, implying that nothing else happened in early research during this time. This is not true, as the bio explains: "During the period 1931–1932 Wilson formulated a theory explaining how energy bands of electrons can make a material a conductor, a semiconductor or an insulator. In 1932 he was awarded the Adams Prize; the essay he wrote for this prize became the basis for his book The Theory of Metals published in 1936. His book Semi-conductors and Metals was published in 1939." "Crystal Fire" (ISBN 978-0-393-31851-7) says (p. 66) "The major advance in the understanding of these curious metals was achieved by the British theorist Alan Wilson, who published two papers entitled "The Theory of Electronic Semi-Conductors" in 1931." I started reading that book a long time ago, and am taking forever to finish it, so I just punted and added the "see also", hoping that someone would run with it, just as someone else started the biography article on him. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see (answering my own question)... I suppose if this is about device development, and Wilson didn't develop any device (just theory), that justifies the lack of a mention here. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Introduction line not very helpful
As someone who knows nothing about this topic, the very first paragraph of this wiki doesn't help me conceptualize what this device is, is used for, or does. "A semiconductor device is an electronic component that relies on the electronic properties of a semiconductor material (primarily silicon, germanium, and gallium arsenide, as well as organic semiconductors) for its function. Semiconductor devices have replaced vacuum tubes in most applications. They use electrical conduction in the solid state rather than the gaseous state or thermionic emission in a vacuum."

To me, this reads as "This device is a device that relies on a thing and some metal for its function. This device replaced another thing. This thing uses a fancy-word thing or a very-fancy-word-thing." It would be much easier to understand if it read something more like this, "This device is a device that [is used for example applications.] [It] relies on a thing and some metal for its [specific detail regarding] function. This device replaced another thing [which was important or innovative because...]. This thing uses a fancy-word thing or a very-fancy-word-thing [which makes semiconductors better/helpful/innovative/something than something else the general public could relate to]." Sweeeetheart (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Semiconductor device


text:
Talk:Dissociative fugue

Origin of term?
I cant find anywhere in the article where it mentions how the term 'Fugue State' was decided upon. I am curious as to whether it is related to the musical term 'Fugue', as I can mentally draw some oblique parallels (sic) between the concepts. Would somebody be so kind as to add this small piece of history in near the top? 220.245.239.93 (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The word 'fugue' comes from the Latin fuga 'act of fleeing,' (from fugere 'to flee'). The psychological term describes a state in which people literally flee from their usual surroundings, and so is not intended to reference the musical term, although the two types of 'fugue' do have a common etymology.Helruna (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fictonal cases
The long list of fictional cases is out of place in an article on psychology. A couple of disctinctive cases that may shed light on the psychological point of view can be informative, but this laundry-list of pop-culture references that have little or nothing to do with the actual psycological state are very much out of place. Fugue is typically misrepresented in popular fiction, television, and film. Giving so much space to these pop-trivia examples detracts from an encyclopedic treatment of the issue. It should be totally, or largely, removed.

I agree with the below critic of somebody's colloquial definition of a fugue state as 'being in the flow'. I have never heard of this, & have been unable to turn up any supporting references at all, in the Oxford English Dictionary or various search engines. Perhaps it's a very local dialect? More likely a pure idiolectical usage. Doesn't belong here until references to its general use can be provided.

From the article:

 * "Also called a "fugue state" by non-psychologists is the state of mind attained by a gifted pianist ..."

Really? I am a gifted pianist, and I just call it "being in the zone" ;-) -- Tarquin 22:00 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

I'm a dancer and I've been in "the zone". I've also been in an actual fugue state. I can tell you, they are NOTHING alike.

I think the only examples to be included in 'Media' ought to be where the fugue state is made explicit as such. In both the movie mentions I removed, the 'fugue state' is an element that resolves the suspense/drama and isn't acknowledged till later in the movie. Gyan 20:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I wish you hadn't removed these! It doesn't matter if the 'fugue state' was an element that resolved the drama. Just because it wasn't acknowledged right up front did not mean that it wasn't actually a fugue state or that we did not want the names of the movies that gave us the example. Thanks for nothing!

 * "People who enter into a fugue state may disappear, running away to a completely different geographical region and assuming another identity."

May? The resources I have found say people in dissociative fugue do leave their homes and assume new identities. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I would like to see a source that confirms this. --AmyBeth 00:53:14, 2005-08-16 (UTC)

'May' implies that the author is giving his permission lol ! I think the word is 'might'. The article gives the impression that the author is only partially literate: I have changed 'alternate' to 'alternative', which I think is what is intended. Andrew Smith —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.50.77 (talk) 16:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mad Travelers
There should be a reference to the first cases of fugue. Dr Ian Hacking has a book called "Mad Travelers." He recounts the first cases and notes that they were all clerks, artisans, and small shop owners. This argues that something else other than sudden distress involving life situations is causing disappearances. (Dr Hacking blames sociological niches.)

Today students are disappearing. The connection between the 1880's epidemic of fugue and today’s student disappearances is that all the victims are knowledge workers.

An outbreak happened at Miami of Ohio in 1953. Several students disappeared, recovered, then returned with amnesia of the events during the episode. When Ron Tammen disappeared they thought he would return too. The story is posted at the Library site Miami of Ohio. The link and discussion is on the Missing Students page at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

The problem is a failure to provide Cubicle Level Protection for those who must study or perform knowledge work in dorm rooms, homes, or small business, "unprotected workspace."

There are several pages on fugue at VisionAndPsychosis.Net.

http://visionandpsychosis.net/mysterious_disappearances.htm http://visionandpsychosis.net/Missing_Students.htm http://visionandpsychosis.net/Dissociative_Fugue-Cases.htm

L K Tucker 14:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

earlier goatse experience
209.78.47.227 03:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC) I'm new around here. But isn't the phrase "earlier goatse experience" on this page funny... but silly in a non-encyclopedic way? (surely goatse viewing wouldn't actually cause a serious identity disorder?)

Intro
The intro is too long, rambling and fairly incomprehensible. It should start by saying in plain language what a fugue state is. Ben Finn 21:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Organic cause for a fugue state: Treatment of bacterial infections.
In some cases, there is evidence to suggest that some types of infections, ie giardia, can cause a fugue like state; a feeling of not being here or schizophrenic like condition.

The cause by some sources has been suggested to me that this is caused by toxins created by the infectious material.

Therefore if some cases of a fugue condition are caused an infection, ie bacteria, then treatment would logically include treating the infection.

This is hopefully a lead for someone to interject some useful material.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

 * This is baloney. Such material should not be interjected under any circumstance. Where's your data? JFW | T@lk  15:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a lead...when I have time I will try to locate it a reference for it....just wanted to bring to your attention this important bit of information, that I obtained from a credible source...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Todays research suggests that some schizophrenic episodes may be the result of a cat bacteria, and this is a link from the bacterial cause to the fugue state of mind ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The fugue state is a dissociative amnesia brought on by environmental stressors. At its most basic, it is a defense mechanism, classified as psychosocial in nature.

 * To support the premise you suggest, you would first have to find research linking schiaophrenia with psychogenic fugue. And you would be hard pressed to do this.  Then, you would have to find research drawing a line between organic causes of schizophrenia, and the occurence of the fugue state.

 * Fugue is such a rare occurence, it is unlikely that there are enough recorded cases to make an argument for any of this. --DashaKat 13:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a term paper
First, the fugue state, dissociative fugue and DID are not related, despite parallels in deiagostic criteria. Trying to draw a line between the two is plain poor scholarship.

Second, this is not a term paper, it is an encyclopedic article. Whomever is using the "therefore"'s, kindly stop. You are presenting information, not trying to convince the reader that the topic is valid.

This article, at second look, is quite poorly written, and the information contained herein is all willy-nilly. I am hoping that we can make a serious effort to clean it up. --DashaKat 13:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Untrue sentance
I'm just a kid who is doing a health project, but on the LSD page it says "There is also some indication that LSD may trigger a dissociative fugue state in individuals who are taking certain classes of antidepressants such as lithium salts and tricyclics."

Then on the Fugue State page it says that "Unlike retrograde amnesia, Dissociative Amnesia is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance."

Now, that seems just a little bit wrong.

If I totally messed up the format, I'm sorry. Just wanted to let you people know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.91.108 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The LSD page is wrong, it should say symptoms of dissociative fugue rather than an actual diagnosis of it. Valethar (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I Disagree
"this is not a term paper" My friend all Wikipedia articles are just that, poorly written term papers. There is no professionalism or expertise involved. That's why college professors flunk students who cite Wikipedia.

"dissociative fugue and DID are not related, despite parallels in deiagostic criteria" The first mistake made is to refer to the DSM. The authors admit they don't know what causes any of the "disorders" they list. That means they don't know where one disorder ends and another begins or the connections between them. Potential connections have been mentioned in presentations and papers.

"Fugue is such a rare occurence, it is unlikely that there are enough recorded cases to make an argument for any of this." The problem is that to record a case someone must seek psychiatric help. Every fall and spring college students go missing. A very few recover and return or are found alive. They exhibit psychiatric symptoms and altered mental states sometimes with amnesia. That hints at a fugue state and Dissociative Fugue.

The definition of Dissociative Fugue used in the DSM involves finding someone that left their life and assumed a new life with no memory connecting the two. Little is known about the events near the disappearance. They do not know what causes it. Psychosocial reasons are given without proof.

There are cases each month in popular media of people who without warning, out of character, and without mental problems disappear. There is sometimes circumstantial evidence that these are fugue cases. It is seen as rare because psychiatrists and psychologists tell us that. It may not be rare at all.

Visit my site and read the Dissociative Fugue, Mysterious Disappearances, and Missing Students pages for cases and links.

I am the copyright holder and grant permissions with correct citation and a link back.

 * That’s on the off-chance you ever become recognised as a reputable source. “Someone who has a webpage” isn’t that, though. Not that it’s necessary for fair use anyway, and not that “a link back” can be demanded.2601:1C2:5000:1472:A862:493D:ADA0:7987 (talk) 10:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

L K Tucker VisionAndPsychosis.Net 69.1.46.218 (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

is liam neesons character in "unknown" in a fugue state?
. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.111.40 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Fugue state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101128192837/http://psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/dissociative_amnesia.htm to http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/dissociative_amnesia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110106174809/http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm to http://www.psychnet-uk.com/dsm_iv/_misc/complete_tables.htm

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Fugue state
Epilepsy and idiopathic seizure disorders are often characterized by a temporary loss of awareness of one's surroundings and the sudden uncontrollable and or unconscious compulsion to wander, look for an imagined fictional destination, and an uncontrollable sudden desire to change one's environment by searching for another place by walking or driving, (if in an automobile), accompanied by an only semi-conscious awareness of one's surroundings or physical, geographic location. The fugue state is also accompanied by confusion with a feeling of being lost in the physical directional sense and if indoors, often a strong compulsion to find and go to another part of the building which doesn't actually exist, often an imagined stairway to an upper storey that does not exist. One also only vaguely recognizes people whom one knows quite well, even intimately. When one comes out of the fugue state, she/he is unaware or only vaguely aware of what transpired. Normalcy returns and the person continues as if nothing happened. Patrick 94122 (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Fugue State seizure episodes are almost always preceded by an aura or rising feeling in the abdomen with by a sudden chill or "gooseflesh" and a sudden onset of parlor or paleness of the face. The Vagus nerve system plays a part in this process but I believe the exact process is unknown. Slight tremor, mumbling and facial tics may also be present. by Patrick McGuire Patrick 94122 (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fugue state. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=9744
 * Added tag to http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=9708
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114165147/http://www.dissociation.co.uk/background.asp to http://www.dissociation.co.uk/background.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150322192925/http://gothamist.com/2008/10/05/hannah_upp_updates_her_status_remem.php to http://gothamist.com/2008/10/05/hannah_upp_updates_her_status_remem.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213132119/http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/273588/158/Missing-woman-found-in-Wheaton to http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/273588/158/Missing-woman-found-in-Wheaton

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Line Edit
There is currently this sentence in the second introductory paragraph:

"Additionally, an episode of fugue is not characterized as attributable to a psychiatric disorder if it can be related to the ingestion of psychotropic substances, to physical trauma, to a general medical condition, or to dissociative identity disorder, delirium, or dementia."

The problem needing clarification ("Is dissociative identity disorder not a psychiatric disorder", etc.) seems to be the result of trying to make one sentence do too much work. I suggest rewriting the sentence from one large sentence to several simpler sentences. This would also improve the readability of the material. I would rewrite it as five sentences:

"Fugue episodes can be a part of dissociative identity disorder. They can also be symptomatic of other psychiatric disorders. Some episodes can occur from ingestion of psychotropic substances. Others are the result of physical trauma, delirium, dementia, or a general medical condition. Episodes are not considered symptomatic of a psychiatric disorder in these situations."

This is not the only way to do it, of course. Any restructuring of the sentence away from a long list to separate, manageable chunks of information should work.

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Bega24 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 28 July 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Per consensus, MEDTITLE applies. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Fugue state → Dissociative fugue – Per the Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles (MOS:MED): "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". "Dissociative fugue" is the established psychiatric term for this. It is the term used by both main authorities on psychiatric taxonomy, the ICD-11 (and 10) and DSM-5 (and IV). These are the two standards relating to names of diseases listed at the Manual of Style at MOS:MED. ("Fugue state" is frequently used in novels and other non-scientific sources that do not qualify as reliable sources.) SilverLocust 💬 01:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) This was originally a contested technical request by jlwoodwa (talk) 23:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC) (permalink). SilverLocust 💬 01:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I said before, based on the Google Ngrams, the current title appears to be the most common name. What is most concerning about the Ngrams results is that in the last 10 years "fugue state" has been increasing in usage dramatically while at the same time "dissociative fugue" has been dropping dramatically. I understand the rationale for using the medically accepted term rather than a slang term, but is it the case that "dissociative fugue" is the only term that medical sources use and "fugue state" is not used, or are the two terms used interchangeably? Just quickly looking at some medical sources through a quick google searchh, it seems like both terms are still being used, with some also using a compound of the two "dissociative fugue state". I would also note that Britannica also titles their article on this subject "Fugue state". Wikipedia is a general use encyclopedia, not a medical journal. If both terms are acceptable and still in use in medical sources, then I think we should stick with the most common title and the one that most of our readers will be most familiar with. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There are a great many novels that like to use the older terminology "fugue state", so Google Ngrams is a poor indicator of use in reliable sources. For illustration, go to the bottom of your link and click "2017 - 2019" (fugue state) to see 10/10 top results are novels or homeopathy; then click "2016 - 2019" (dissociative fugue) to see 10/10 psychiatry books.
 * If this is meant to be a WP:COMMONNAME argument, I would like to see some attempt to show that fugue state is used in "a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". While dissociative fugue is obviously not the only term used, just as I am sure some medical sources include the lay term "heart attack", that is not what the guidelines call for. Nor does Encyclopedia Britannica follow a naming convention like MOS:MED, or they would use myocardial infarction instead of heart attack. SilverLocust 💬 10:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 10:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Psychology has been notified of this discussion. SilverLocust 💬 10:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Here from the WP:MED notification. Support per stated WP:MEDTITLE argument. Little pob (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that the Breaking Bad episode Fugue State probably has something to do with the increased use of the term, but per the nom, move to reflect medical usage. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * support per WP:MEDTITLE--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar gives me a 60–40 Ghits split in favor of the older name (quoted names in both searches), when looking at the last five years. PubMed gives me no instances of the older name used in the last five years, and an 20–80 split in favor of the newer name when lookingat the last ten years.  The fact that the ICD and DSM have both used "dissociative fugue" for both the current and previous editions is another solid reason to move the article.  I therefore strongly support this name change.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move, nothing to add that others haven't already covered. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dissociative fugue


text:
Talk:Operational definition

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 8DBienaime.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing, overly technical language
Template:Confusing was placed atop this article in January 2018, for good reasons. Some of the language is also overly technical. I began to edit the article for improved clarity (diff). Let's discuss edits to improve the clarity, precision, and comprehensibility of the article here. My expertise is in psychology, so not surprisingly my edits cited references from the psychology literature. If other scientific disciplines explain "operational definition" differently, please add that information with citations to reliable sources. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

who molested this page
This page used to explain operational definitions as used in science in a concise and clear way. Right now it looks like an exercise in disinformation to prevent readers from understanding the concept. Can we revert it to a sane state, please? Vaceituno (talk) 08:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Operational definition


text:
Trainspotting

Trainspotting may refer to:

 * Trainspotting (hobby), an amateur interest in railways/railroads
 * Trainspotting (novel), a 1993 novel by Irvine Welsh
 * Trainspotting (film), a 1996 film based on the novel
 * Trainspotting (soundtrack), two soundtrack albums from the film
 * T2 Trainspotting, a 2017 sequel to the 1996 film
 * "Trainspotting", a song by Primal Scream from their 1997 album Vanishing Point
 * Trainspotting, a video game for the Comx-35 home computer

title: Trainspotting


text:
Talk:Louis IV of France

comment
There appears to be a gap of 7 years between the date given for Charles the Simple's death and Louis's successcion, is this correct ? --Imran

Looking it up. It seems complicated. Charles III was deposed at least once, and reigned twice in partnership -- I have here a Raoul de Bourgogne reigning 923-936, of which 923-929 was with Charles. Confusing indeed. -- Tarquin 22:21 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

--A stomach twice as big as a regular stomach?! where did this info come from???????? It's funny, and somewhat intriguing...

The link for that fact is. Look down the list until you find it.

Aquamarine
Is this Louis the Aquamarine? If it is can someone more familiar w/ French monarchy enlighten us on the origins of the name? Jirt 17:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Children Conflict
Gerberga of Saxony lists 8 children of Louis IV and Gerberga, while Louis IV states there are only 3. This needs to be matched up one way or other. Kenalynn 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Date of Death
The article gives both September 10th and September 30th as his death.--Blkgardner (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The longer French-language Wikipedia article says September 10, and also describes Louis IV's death as happening at "the end of summer." Additionally, the death of Louis IV in 954 is listed on French-language Wikipedia's page _about_ the date September 10. The Encyclopedia Britannica and most other online sources also say September 10, but enough sources say September 30 that I wouldn't feel confident in changing this English-language article. (I do note, however, that this English-language article gives September 10 as his _birth_ date, whereas the French-language article says simply that he was born between September 920 and September 921.) pnh (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Coinage
Here's a coin of Louis IV. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Louis IV of France


text:
User talk:TMC

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.93.21 (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Additional discussion moved in from User:ThrobbingMonsterCock:

I am banned user formerly known as User:Throbbing_Monster_Cock. I have never accessed Wikipedia as User:TMC and it is a misrepresentation to have my user page located there. I am therefore deleting that content.

''TMC: I dug out your original homepage and found your pessimistic views on wikipedia interesting. First, I'd like to opine that "utility" is a subjective term - I consider writing to have utility if it entertains me. I found the current (as of today) entry of HMS Lightning to be of extreme utility :)''

''Also, what do you mean by "useful point of view"? I'm wondering if you mean to disagree with the view that wikipedia articles should have "neautral point of view", and if so, why?'' -- User:Micksa

As User:Isis, the primary instigator behind my original banning, has revealed her true nature and left Wikipedia in a huff, I assume that I am again welcome to contribute to the development of this encylopedia.

 * What happened to Isis? Enquiring minds want to know! -- NetEsq 04:47 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Nevermind. I figured it out for myself:  Isis decided that User:Tarquin had defamed her (i.e., Isis) and threatened to sue Tarquin because Tarquin claimed that Isis was mistaken about copyright law in re photographs.  And all of this ugliness could have been avoided if Jimbo had simply left the username User:Throbbing_Monster_Cock as an ugly gargoyle on the roof of the Wikipedia church to ward off the evil spirits. -- NetEsq 05:24 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

What an objective metaphor ;) -- Micksa

Finally, as food for thought, I would like to point out that retroactively granting credit for my edits to the non-existent User:TMC violates both the letter and the spirit of the GFDL. I don't expect this observation to change the behavior of the parties involved, but hopefully who think seriously about the GFDL will appreciate the point made.

 * Mmmm, good and interesting point, now fuck off.

Your assumption is sadly mistaken.

Sorry bub, this user name is still banned. You're welcome to contribute anonymously, under your real name, or under a pseudonym that isn't selected specifically for the purpose of rocking the boat. Rock the boat with your wonderful content instead! --Brion 00:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

TMC arrives, Isis goes, TMC banned, Isis comes back, Isis banned, TMC comes back. I've sussed it, they are one in the same!!

The reason your details were changed was because it is against Wiki rules to use usernics that may cause offence, disturbance or whatever to other users, visitors to the site, etc. That might seem an over-reaction but as I found it is a crucial necessity. Recently, I was in negotiations with a photo library who were about to supply Wiki with access to its extensive photo library. I told them all about Wiki. They were impressed but decided to check the serious endeavour that is Wikipedia before finally handing over the photos. They logged on, to be greeted with idiots calling themselves 'ThrobbingMonsterCock', 'CrucifiedChrist', etc and immediately decided that Wiki obviously wasn't such a serious endeavour after all if its contributors consisted of assholes using childish, immature names like that. So thanks to you, Wiki lost access to hundreds of historic photos of world leaders of the latter half of the twentieth century. The bottom line is, you may see using childish names like 'ThrobbingMonsterCock' as just a funny game, but if it (as it has done in more than just that case) damages Wikipedia, then you are doing more damage than the worst vandal and no amount of good articles by you balances out the damage done by pointlessly causing offence and making Wikipedia look like a bunch of immature kids playing with names. If you want to use stupid childish names, do it some where else.

By the way Isis was not the person behind your banning. It was widely discussed by many members who took the view that your nickname (and those of a small number of others) was undoing the work of the vast majority who are striving to make Wikipedia a serious and respected sourcebook, not a glorified playpen for immature name games. If you want to contribute, do so by respecting others and the Wikipedia project. If all you are interested in is childish name games, find somewhere else to play.

Wiki has a policy of changing offensive usernames and will continue to exercise it. That's why you were changed to TMC and why if you try to use ThrobbingMemberCock or any other such name, it will be changed, again and again and again JTD 05:18 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Don't try to blame Throbbing Monster Cock for ruining your chances of getting a would-be contributor to donate photos; the Throbbing One was long gone by that point. And what makes you think that "Crucified Christ" was playing a funny game?  I reviewed his edits, and he or she was most certainly not attempting blasphemy.  Rather, he or she apparently chose that username as a statement of his or her pro-Christian beliefs.  Do you have any idea how foolish that makes you and your confederates look for jumping to unwarranted conclusions?  Or how many would-be contributors might be scared off by the spectre of Wikipedia's Name Police? -- NetEsq 05:31 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

JTD you are a maroon writing comments like you do here, When your understanding of Wikipedian Ethos is so limited.... there are tons of your meally mouthed posts that show your ignorance and stupidity. I know that you have the capacity to write excellent articles; however, you do not show the subtlty of mind nessessary to do justice to complex topics. My statement is fully supported in the histories of the wikipedia. Let's take a look with the community if you dare come into the light. SLAP! with white glove.

User:Two16

You try talking to a senior person in a company whose reaction on seeing ThrobbingMonsterCock (and yes he was there) was to say, and I quote,
 * 'for fuck sake, you said we'd be supplying our photographs to a credible organisation. How can you seriously expect my company to sign over photographs to your organisation when you contributors called CrucifiedChrist, Throbbingcock and the like. For fuck sake, my MD would go apeshit."

''It sounds like this "senior person" has quite a potty mouth and (like you) has grossly mischaracterized the issues at hand. -- NetEsq 07:44 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)''

 * You stupid, sad bastard.

 * What a stunning response! Clearly, you are well versed in the art of reasoned debate! -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Or a head of state's office who were about to supply pictures until they saw five names and rang back to say that

 * 'there is no way we could give pictures to any encyclopedia with contributors like that. If the newspapers found out we'd given pictures to an organisation with those types of contributors, my president would be slated and made to look an asshole. I cannot possibly authorise use of our pictures in that context. Sorry I'd love to, but I cannot. We'd be interpreted as approving of such people.'

Maybe you see Wiki as some sort of game where you can play at being an immature 11 year old, but the rest of us don't. It isn't about 'name police', it is about having the basic cop-on to respect your fellow contributors, users of wikipedia and others. And if you are so childish that you are more concerned with mythical name police than doing your job here, that's merely a reflection on you. I for one don't give a tuppenny damn if someone calls themselves CrucifiedChrist, AllahIsGay, VaginalLubricator or whatever else. But I do care if their childishness damages Wikipedia. And we do have to have restrictions because I for one don't fancy people joining up and calling themselves KillFags, HitlerIsMyHero, ChildRapist, GasJews or ShootNiggers. People should be able to work on Wikipedia or consult Wikipedia without having their sexual orientation, their race, their beliefs or whatever ridiculed by some childish idiot who is more concerned with giving people the two fingers than doing proper work on Wikipedia. It isn't about name police, it is about common courtesy and respect, something you obviously don't grasp. JTD 06:24 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Rants like the one set forth above speak volumes about people who pretend to take the high road and pass judgment on the motives of others. To wit, the usernames "Throbbing Monster Cock" and "CrucifiedChrist" fall far short of any reasonable standard for proscribing offensive usernames, and both users made valuable contributions to Wikipedia.  Nonetheless, we have JTD ignoring the valuable contributions of these Wikipedians and equating these usernames with all sorts of crudity and hate speech.  Can you say "witch hunt"?
 * Can you say "Libertarian wanker moron?"

 * Can you say "troll"? -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)''

 * BTW, the "mythical" Name Police is a reality, my friend. -- NetEsq 07:44 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

 * Unh, unh, they're coming through the walls! Get a life, sad person. My friend.

 * This from an anonymous coward? Sorry, but "I'm rubber and you're glue, . . ." -- NetEsq 17:22 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

By the way, Two16, I know most of us see you as a semi-literate joke, but if you are going to try to be insulting, could you just once LEARN TO SPELL. Maroon is a colour!!! Also learn some of the basic rules of grammar. Oh and, if you are from Canada, try to learn how to spell Canadian - it never was, and never will be Canadain. Now take some of your tablets and go away.

 * "Maroon" is a Bugs Bunny reference, whch has long ago been accepted as a word for said definition. Get with the times, fucktard . Flip Merav 21 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Learn to apply logic. I'm tired of appling it with a trowel. READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE: It looks like you can't read when you respond and at least I can use a spell check in the morning. Won' t you cheecks be a colour when you learn Bugs Bunny's favorite insult: What a maroon! Feeling the blood flow yet MAROON 'cause there more coming you ignorant prejudiced prat:

 * Maroon is both a gentler and more complex an adjective than moron. The uniforms of any team named Maroon are a beautiful scarlet. Scarlet gets deeper, darker, richer, brighter when wet with sweat or water. This makes Maroons excellent subjects for sports photography. It's downside is most often seen during High School basketball season: any player so incautious as to not shake after his pre-game relief will find his urine stain visible in the highest bleacher. If you are a starting player there is no place to hide.
 * Um, what the fuck ? Flip Merav 21 02:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Compare with: Hanlon's Razor

 * Get back on all fours and think about your life. My comments are widely posted about user names and their suitablity. You don't seem to understand what is happening to your reputation with each new moronic statement you write. Sit JTD Sit.    User:Two16

 * Very bad, sad edit, please burn your keyboard now.Add

And from User talk:ThrobbingMonsterCock:

Your user page is in error. You are still banned until User:Jimbo Wales says otherwise, which will only happen if the mailing list et al support it. Tokerboy

And, never under this name. Ortolan88 00:26 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Don't trouble to think that there are just one or two weirdos who take this view: I am about to suggest on the list that you be completely deleted (if others have not already done so) - and I will be very surprised if that does not take place. Perhaps others will take a different view, but I am of the opinion that a user with so little consideration for other readers cannot be presumed to have anything useful to contribute, and should not be allowed back under any name or any circumstances. Tannin 00:36 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

TMC, you're annoying everyone here with your silly username. You are not welcome unless you accept the change. The respective Wikipedia policy No offensive usernames has been defined by many Wikipedians, not just Isis. Get used to it or get lost.--Eloquence 00:59 Feb 8, 2003 (UTC)

Are usernames a good idea in the first place?
It seems to me, as an anonymous coward outsider, that this entire discussion is pointless. The entire username system, especially in this setting, only leads to ad-hominem attacks: you correlate changes written by the same person and your feelings about one change affect your views of other changes, etc. A user's choice of username, whether patently offensive or not, may again influence our views of contributed information. Already in this discussion, comments have been made to the effect of "your grammar is in a sad state, so I see no reason to take anything you say into consideration." In the end, who said something matters more than what or why, which for an encyclopedia, is quite sad. There are arguments for authority: that anything said without proof of knowledge is useless, or that our collective inability to audit the source of some text renders the text immediately suspect and even useless. The fact is, all text should be suspect, and everyone gets their say one way or another. Users banned by username will select a different name. We should rename 'anonymous coward' to 'politely anonymous contributor' and accept the fact that sometimes, being anonymous is preferable both for self and for the community. Naturally, I expect plenty of people to disagree with this opinion simply because it comes anonymously; I would also expect it to be rejected as hypocritical were it to come from someone using an actual login. Is anybody required to use logins to make changes? Is the availability of usernames more dangerous than other perils? A cost analysis seems in order. Politely anonymous contributor, Oct. 8 2003

I agree...partially. I am opposed to names that are self-glorifying adjectives, like someone with a username of "cool" "beauty" "oblosence" or "dogma" or whatever, so my idea is to use a rather abstract name whose only association will be with oneself, not an idea that may intimidate or anger users when applied as an identity.--Ikiroid 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Gay-flag-6.png
Hi TMC, you have loaded up Image:Gay-flag-6.png. It does not have any license. Please write a license there until the 20th November, because after that date I am going to put the Image Images_for_deletion. A User from our German WP has loaded up the Image at the German WP, so I want to write the license there. --Leon¿! | GerWP GerWP ¿! ]] 15:38, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Man, you ruined the academic debate! You suck! Flip Merav 21 02:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Germany_flag_1945.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Germany_flag_1945.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 10:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:TMC


text:
Talk:Judgment Night (The Twilight Zone)

Untitled
Ack! Subpages! Please don't create subpages! You could make this Judgment Night (Twilight Zone) -- Zoe

216.244.12.76 I need to talk to you
Hi, I am an administrator, Xinyu, and I got a report from ProfesorPaul, about how you've been, "vandalizing" EVERY SINGLE EPISODE OF The Twilight Zone. Discuss your intentions, what you have editted, fixed up, and under what pretext you have for doing so. I need you to tell me all the information you can get, and I promise both you and ProfessorPaul, this problem would be negotiable, once the facts has been laid bare, and then I'll see that NPOV, justice, and peace would be restored on this article. Thank you, please reply on my user TALK page. Thank you. --Lord X 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu

title: Talk:Judgment Night (The Twilight Zone)