text:
Space Ritual

Space Ritual (officially known as The Space Ritual Alive in Liverpool and London) is a 1973 live double album recorded in 1972 by UK rock band Hawkwind. It is their fourth album since their debut, Hawkwind, in 1970. It reached number 9 in the UK Albums Chart and briefly dented the Billboard Hot 200, peaking at number 179.

Background
The album was recorded during the tour to promote their Doremi Fasol Latido album, which comprises the bulk of this set. In addition there are new tracks ("Born To Go", "Upside Down" and "Orgone Accumulator") and the songs are interspersed by electronic and spoken pieces, making this one continuous performance. Their recent hit single "Silver Machine" was excluded from the set, and only "Master of the Universe" remains from their first two albums.

The Space Ritual show attempted to create a full audio-visual experience, representing themes developed by Barney Bubbles and Robert Calvert entwining the fantasy of starfarers in suspended animation traveling through time and space with the concept of the music of the spheres. The performance featured dancers Stacia, Miss Renee and Tony Carrera, stage set by Bubbles, lightshow by Liquid Len and poetry recitations by Calvert. On entering the venue, audience members were given a programme (reproduced on the 1996 remaster CD) featuring a short sci-fi story by Bubbles setting the band in a Starfarers scenario returning to Earth.

The original release featured edits and overdubs, the sleeve notes explaining that "We had to cut a piece out of Brainstorm and Time We Left because they were too long", but the 1985 Space Ritual Volume 2 album contains the full unedited versions. A previously unheard edited version of "You Shouldn't Do That" (segued with an unlisted "Seeing It As You Really Are") from this concert was included on the 1976 Roadhawks compilation album, then subsequently included as a bonus track on the 1996 remaster CD. The full unedited version of the track can be found on the Hawkwind Anthology album. June 2007 saw another EMI 2CD remaster issue with different bonus tracks and DVD-audio - this remaster would be reissued in 2013, minus the DVD-audio.

"Sonic Attack" had been written by science fiction author Michael Moorcock, who often performed with the band when convenient and Calvert was unavailable. Here it is recited by Calvert and it was scheduled for single release, promotional copies being distributed in a cloth sleeve, but it never did receive a full release.

Recording
The album was recorded at Liverpool Stadium, 22 December 1972 and Brixton Sundown, 30 December 1972 by Vic Maile and the Pye Mobile. It was produced by Hawkwind, then mixed by Vic Maile and Anton Matthews at Olympic Studios, Barnes. The bonus track "You Shouldn't Do That" was recorded at Brixton Sundown, 30 December 1972, and originally released on the Roadhawks compilation album. "Master Of The Universe" and "Born To Go", bonus tracks on the 1996 2CD release, were recorded at The Roundhouse, 13 February 1972, and originally released on the Greasy Truckers Party various artists album.

 * "The Awakening" is a spoken piece which had previously been printed in the Hawklog which accompanied the group's 1971 In Search of Space album.
 * "Black Corridor" is a spoken piece, adapted from the Michael Moorcock book of the same name.
 * "Orgone Accumulator" lyrics were inspired by Wilhelm Reich. Pop Will Eat Itself covered the song in 1987 on their "Love Missile F1-11" single.

Sleeve
The sleeve was designed by Barney Bubbles and came in 3x2 panel foldout, the outer 6 panels being colour, the inner 6 panels being monochrome, the discs in psychedelic patterned orange & yellow inner sleeves were folded into this. It made Q Magazine's 100 greatest album covers list.
 * The outer foldout features an illustration of Miss Stacia flanked by the hounds of King over stage shots of the band.
 * The inner foldout features three panels of a photograph of outer space with three illustrations on each panel headed by lines from a Hawkwind song.
 * Inner panel 1: features a vintage photograph of a naked woman with listed credits.
 * Inner panel 2: chac bacab – features an image of a female nipple as a planet, and a legend of the Earth as a living entity.
 * Inner panel 3: kan bacab – features an image of a foetus suspended in space with the legend "The Universe resounds with the joyful cry I AM. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Naked I came out of my mothers womb and naked shall I return thither."
 * Inner panel 4: Features a mandala with the legend "Everything exists for itself, yet everything is part of something else. The One and the many contain in themselves the principles of time and space. The way up and the way down are one and the same."
 * Inner panel 5: Features a dedication from Lemmy to John the Bog, Supernova and Sue Bennett. zac bacab, tec bacab and bac bacab expounds upon religious and cosmological myths and sciences, starting with the William Blake Auguries of Innocence poem "To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour", ending with the Alfred Whitehead quote "Give up illusions about ideas of order, accept nothing of inherited norm. Spread joy and revolution. It is the business of the future to be dangerous."
 * Inner panel 6: features a winged superhero grasping an electrical cable and lightning bolts, perched upon an Earth situated in a void.

Release history

 * May 1973: United Artists Records, UAD60037/8, UK vinyl – original issues came in 6-panel fold-out sleeve with inner sleeves. Subsequent releases in gatefold sleeve.
 * September 1992: One Way Records, S2257659, USA CD
 * March 1996: EMI Remasters, HAWKS4, UK CD – initial copies in digipak with reproduction of the Space Ritual tour programme (An extract from the Saga of Doremi Fasol Latido)
 * June 2007: EMI Remasters, UK 2CD+DVD
 * 11 October 2010: Rock Classics, RCV016LP, UK, 2x12" vinyl 1000 copies; RCV017LP, UK, 2x12" vinyl 1000 copies
 * 21 January 2013: Parlophone Records, HAWKSS 4, Europe 2CD - re-issue of 2007 release, but without DVD - 6 panel fold-out inlay - track listing as per 1996 CD release Hawkwind - Space Ritual
 * 29 September 2023: Cherry Red Records ATOMCD111053, UK, 10 CD + 1 Blu-Ray disc box-set including new stereo and 5.1 remixes by Stephen W. Tayler, plus new mixes of Liverpool, Brixton and Sunderland concerts from 1972, 68 page booklet with essay by Robert Godwin and reproduction original concert program.

Reception
In the Q & Mojo Classic Special Edition Pink Floyd & The Story of Prog Rock, the album came number 8 in its list of "40 Cosmic Rock Albums". The album was also included in the book 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die at number 276.

Track listing

 * Side 1
 * 1) "Earth Calling" (Robert Calvert) – 1:44
 * 2) "Born to Go" (Calvert, Dave Brock) – 9:56
 * 3) "Down Through the Night" (Brock) – 6:16
 * 4) "The Awakening" (Calvert) – 1:32
 * Side 2
 * 1) "Lord of Light" (Brock) – 7:21
 * 2) "Black Corridor" (Michael Moorcock) – 1:51
 * 3) "Space Is Deep" (Brock) – 8:13
 * 4) "Electronic No. 1" (Michael "Dik Mik" Davies, Del Dettmar) – 2:26
 * Side 3
 * 1) "Orgone Accumulator" (Calvert, Brock) – 9:59
 * 2) "Upside Down" (Brock) – 2:43
 * 3) "10 Seconds of Forever" (Calvert) – 2:05
 * 4) "Brainstorm" (Nik Turner) – 9:20
 * Side 4
 * 1) "Seven By Seven" (Brock) – 6:11
 * 2) "Sonic Attack" (Moorcock) – 2:54
 * 3) "Time We Left This World Today" (Brock) – 5:47
 * 4) "Master of the Universe" (Turner, Brock) – 7:37
 * 5) "Welcome to the Future" (Calvert) – 2:04
 * Bonus tracks on 1996 Remasters CD:
 * 1) "You Shouldn't Do That" (Turner, Brock) / "Seeing It As You Really Are" [unlisted] (Brock) – 6:58
 * 2) "Master of the Universe" (Turner, Brock) – 7:23
 * 3) "Born to Go" (Calvert, Brock) – 13:02

 * 2007 Digital remaster

 * CD 1
 * 1) "Earth Calling"
 * 2) "Born to Go"
 * 3) "Down Through the Night"
 * 4) "The Awakening"
 * 5) "Lord of Light"
 * 6) "Black Corridor"
 * 7) "Space Is Deep"
 * 8) "Electronic No. 1"
 * 9) "Orgone Accumulator"
 * 10) "Upside Down"
 * 11) "10 Seconds of Forever"
 * 12) "Brainstorm" (full version) - 13:46
 * CD 2
 * 1) "7 By 7"
 * 2) "Sonic Attack"
 * 3) "Time We Left This World Today"
 * 4) "Master of the Universe"
 * 5) "Welcome to the Future" (full version) - 2:49
 * 6) "You Shouldn't Do That" (full version) - 10:38
 * 7) "Orgone Accumulator" (alternate nights performance) - 8:50
 * 8) "Time We Left This World Today" (alternate nights performance) - 13:22
 * 9) "You Shouldn't Do That" (alternate nights performance, from the Roadhawks compilation album) - 6:42

tracks are in both DTS 96/24 and 24 bit/48 kHz Stereo format
 * DVD Audio
 * 1) "Earth Calling"
 * 2) "Born to Go"
 * 3) "Down Through the Night"
 * 4) "The Awakening"
 * 5) "Lord of Light"
 * 6) "Black Corridor"
 * 7) "Space Is Deep"
 * 8) "Electronic No. 1"
 * 9) "Orgone Accumulator"
 * 10) "Upside Down"
 * 11) "10 Seconds of Forever"
 * 12) "Brainstorm"
 * 13) "7 By 7"
 * 14) "Sonic Attack"
 * 15) "Time We Left This World Today"
 * 16) "Master of the Universe"
 * 17) "Welcome to the Future"
 * 18) "You Shouldn't Do That"

Hawkwind

 * Dave Brock – guitar; vocals (tracks 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15)
 * Nik Turner – saxophone, flute; vocals (tracks 2, 19, 20)
 * Lemmy (Ian Kilmister) – bass guitar; vocals (tracks 6, 7, 13, 15)
 * Dik Mik (Michael Davies) – audio generator, electronics
 * Del Dettmar – synthesizer
 * Simon King – drums
 * Robert "Bob" Calvert – poetry, vocals ("poet and swazzle" on the album credits) (tracks 4, 6, 9, 11, 14)
 * Stacia - dancer and visual artist

Volume 2
Space Ritual Volume 2 is an archive live album by Hawkwind released in 1985 consisting of a live performance from 1972. The tapes were licensed by Dave Brock to former Hawkwind bass player Dave Anderson for release. Recorded at Liverpool Stadium

This recording is part of the performance that was processed for disc 2 of Space Ritual. Here it is in its original state, with no edits or overdubs, notable differences being a different middle section to "Orgone Accumulator", "Paranoia" included as the middle section of "Time We Left This World Today" and the end portion of "Brainstom" (Often mistakenly stated as "Wind of Change") leading into "7 By 7". "Space Is Deep" and "You Shouldn't Do That" / "Seeing It As You Really Are" from this tape were released on Hawkwind Anthology.

 * 1) "Electronic No. 1" [listed as "Space"] (Dettmar/Dik Mik) – 2:15
 * 2) "Orgone Accumulator" (Calvert/Brock) – 8:45
 * 3) "Upside Down" (Brock) – 2:45
 * 4) "Sonic Attack" (Moorcock) – 2:50
 * 5) "Time We Left This World Today" (Brock) / "Paranoia" [unlisted] (Brock) – 13:20
 * 6) "10 Seconds of Forever" (Calvert) – 2:10
 * 7) "Brainstorm" (Turner) – 12:00
 * 8) "7 By 7" (Brock) – 8:50
 * 9) "Master of the Universe" (Turner/Brock) – 7:40
 * 10) "Welcome to the Future" (Calvert) – 2:55

 * see starfarer for full catalogue of releases, re-releases, retitles of this album.

Space Ritual Live 2014
On 22 February 2014, Hawkwind performed a one-off show at the Shepherd's Bush Empire, London in conjunction with Rock 4 Rescue in aid of various animal charities (Wet Nose Animal Aid, Animals Asia Foundation, Team Badger and Doris Banham Dog Rescue). The night consisted of two sets, the second being an almost entire run-through of the original Space Ritual album - "Electronic Number 1" being replaced by a new electronic instrumental piece titled "A Step into Space". The event was compered by TV presenter Matthew Wright, and the group were joined by former Soft Machine guitarist John Etheridge on "Down Through The Night" and "Space Is Deep", while "Sonic Attack" was recited from a pre-recording by Brian Blessed who had been involved in other Team Badger projects including the "Save the Badger Badger Badger" single with Brian May. Silver Machine was performed as the encore (unlike the original 1972/3 shows where "You Shouldn't do That" was the encore.) Paradoxically, the single of Silver Machine that helped to finance the original Space Ritual tour, but wasn't actually performed on that tour.

The recording was released by Gonzo Media on 30 March 2015 in three formats: 2CD, 2CD/DVD-Video (set 2), and 2CD/2DVD-Video (both sets).

Disc 1

 * 1) "Seasons" (Jonathan Hulme Derbyshire, Niall Hone, Richard Chadwick)
 * 2) "Steppenwolf" (Robert Calvert, Dave Brock)
 * 3) "Arrival in Utopia" [listed as "Utopia"] (Michael Moorcock, Brock)
 * 4) "Opa Loka" (Alan Powell, Simon King)
 * 5) "Spiral Galaxy" (Simon House)
 * 6) "Reefer Madness" (Calvert, Brock)
 * 7) "Sentinel" (Derbyshire, Hone, Chadwick, Tim Blake)
 * 8) "Spirit of the Age" (Calvert, Brock)

Disc 2

 * 1) "Earth Calling"
 * 2) "Born To Go"
 * 3) "Down Through The Night"
 * 4) "The Awakening" [listed as "First Landing on Medusa"]
 * 5) "Lord of Light"
 * 6) "The Black Corridor"
 * 7) "Space is Deep"
 * 8) "A Step into Space"
 * 9) "Orgone Accumulator"
 * 10) "Upside Down"
 * 11) "The Tenth Second Forever"
 * 12) "Brainstorm"
 * 13) "Seven by Seven"
 * 14) "Sonic Attack"
 * 15) "Time We Left (This World Today)"
 * 16) "Masters of the Universe"
 * 17) "Welcome To The Future"
 * 18) "Silver Machine"

Personnel

 * Dave Brock - guitar, vocals and synth
 * Mr Dibs - vocals, bass and fx
 * Nail Hone - bass and vocals
 * Tim Blake - keyboards, theremin
 * Dead Fred|Frederick de la Mort]] (Philip Reeves) - keyboards, violin
 * Richard Chadwick - drums
 * John Etheridge - guitar ("Down Through The Night" and "Space Is Deep")
 * Brian Blessed - vocals ("Sonic Attack")

Release history

 * 30 March 2015 - 2CD, Gonzo Media, HAWKGZ102CD
 * 30 March 2015 - 2CD/DVD, Gonzo Media, HAWKGZ103DVD
 * 30 March 2015 - 2CD/2DVD, Gonzo Media, HAWKGZ104SE

title: Space Ritual


text:
Talk:Stellar evolution

Untitled
In the section for low mass stars, it says "A star of less than about 2.6 space and solar mass.."..guess there is a problem here...could someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.168.161 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Better now, four years later? The sentence is no longer there. TNKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Undefined Symbol
The symbol \begin{smallmatrix}M_\odot\end{smallmatrix} for solar mass is used without definition. TommoB (talk) 01:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. Corrected that. -- Stiip (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Layout
The image "Life cycle of the sun" quite at the beginning of the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Life_Cycle.svg) scrambles layout at any resolution below 1280 x 1024 in FF 5. Don't know whether that's a FF issue (IE in this case handles it better) only, but is there any chance to correct that? (I'm not a CSS native so I won't change the code right away.) -- Stiip (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice if that image could be modified so that it has a vertical orientation rather than horizontal; doing so would probably make it a better fit for many Wikipedia page layouts. Maybe I'll give it a shot... Regards, RJH (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Massive Stars
''Stars cannot be more than about 120 solar masses because the outer layers would be expelled by the extreme radiation. Although lower mass stars normally do not burn off their outer layers so rapidly, they can likewise avoid becoming red giants or red supergiants if they are in binary systems close enough so that the companion star strips off the envelope as it expands, or if they rotate rapidly enough so that convection extends all the way from the core to the surface, resulting in the absence of a separate core and envelope due to thorough mixing''

Not true....

http://io9.com/5596886/the-largest-star-ever-found-is-300-times-bigger-and-10-million-times-brighter-than-the-sun

Thank you and keep up the good work peeps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.81.60 (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Massive star pre-supernova state core composition discrepancy
Silicon burning process says that the end product of the nuclear burning process is Nickel-56 with minutes of Zinc-60 produced. It also says that silicon-burning process lasts about a day or so. Half-life of Nickel-56 is about 10 days and then decays into cobalt-56 with a half-life about 77 days which decays into iron-56. The discrepancy is that various images on Wikipedia show that pre-supernova state star's core consists of iron, rather than nickel and cobalt, despite only small amounts of iron being created within a day before supernova occurs. Unless a star releases energy via decay of nickel-56 and cobalt-56, should the main element in star's core be nickel with some cobalt instead of iron? --Artman40 (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Silicon burning process article says the supernova explosion occurs once the iron starts to be fused with helium to produce nickel. Hence it should be an iron-nickel core. My understanding is that additional radioactive elements are produced during the explosion itself. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary tracks
Do we have an entire article about stellar evolution without a picture of evolutionary tracks on the HR diagram? The closest is that absolutely horrible and inaccurate indication of the sun's evolution. This picture is better although not without it's faults: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stellar_evolutionary_tracks-en.svg Lithopsian (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ugg. That solar evolution track is pretty hideous. Yours is good but doesn't replace it. If we can't find a free source track, I'm tempted to generate one using Mesa, but fear that would constitute WP:OR. --Yaush (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I have created a blank evolutionary tracks image and put it into this article with annotations. It looks a little bare at the moment and needs a better caption, but I think it is the start of something useful for this article.  Anyone can edit the annotations so we can easily make it a lot better, or use it in different ways in different locations.  The solar track image is still there for comparison, but it is so horrible that I'm going to delete it soon whatever else happens. Lithopsian (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I appreciate the much-improved image. However, I might suggest that you get it ready for display with edits in your userspace before putting it in the article, as getting that right will require a good bit of tweaking. A couple comments: 1) The image is too wide at 500px; it takes most (but not all) of a column). 350px would be better. I would have made that change myself, but it requires modifying all the annotation indices too. 2) The title should not be "proposed stellar evolutionary tracks image"! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

 * I improved the caption. Too much?  The width is tricky.  I tried 350px (easy, just downsize all the annotations by 0.7) and I couldn't read it clearly.  Remember that annotated images can't be expended like a thumbnail, what you see (or can't see) is what you get. Lithopsian (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Is this how to use the talk page? Sorry if this is off topic, but I've never used one before. FluxLightSpectrum (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

star generations
It would be great if someone could do a section (better yet - a new article) about the different generations of stars (currently, Star Generation goes to the James Brown song!) and what their properties are. For example, to discuss how first generation stars and their respective solar systems have only the lightest elements such as H and He, their comparatively short lifespans and how they are likely to only have gas-giant "superearths" orbiting at extremely close distances as planets; how after a supernova you get heavier elements in the second generation, what type of planets are likely; how a new supernova leads to generation III with the heaviest elements, etc; and to discuss what the likely timespans are for each generation and between the generations... and to say when (second/third generation...?) life is likely to occur thanks to the presence of the elements C, N, O, P, etc...

So, please someone in the know create such a section, or better yet new article. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Already exists. See Population I, for example.  That is the correct terminology.  Maybe those sections could be expanded. Lithopsian (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I knew I'd read it way back when, but spent ages looking for it yesterday in vain. I disambig'd the song page. Cheers! BigSteve (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Plasma Recombination
Why is there no mention of plasma recombination or heterolysis? Are we talking about stars here or pseudoscience?Wavyinfinity (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

 * This is just plainly a preposterous proposition. This has absolutely nothing to do with stars or stellar evolution at all. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadful : Stellar Evolution, Figure: Evolution of a Sun-like star & Text
As a former teacher and educator on Stellar Evolution, I am appalled at the standard of quality in this article. There are so many errors and contrivances of the truth, that it fails to meet even the basics. It really doesn't meet the standards of the average high school student, who if reading it in its present state, would see it does not match their curriculum. I've already greatly fixed some of the introductory paragraphs text here to be factual, but after this, the text is a bit of a mishmash of facts and false statements. For example;

Now under the sub-title "Red-giant branch phase" is a Figure "Evolution of a Sun-like star" is just wrong. The figure's curve shows the H-R evolution curve of a star above 2.25 solar masses (2.3 in some references), which undergoes helium core burning. The Sun is only 1.0 solar mass, and but rises dramatically in luminosity in a near straight line. Hence, ending on the AGB. This is clearly shown in the earlier figure in "The evolutionary tracks of stars."

Option: Either change the caption, then fix the Fiure's text, or just remove the figure entirely.

Worst here is the statement "When the temperature and pressure in the core become sufficient to ignite helium fusion (triple alpha ignition), a helium flash will occur if the core is largely supported by electron degeneracy pressure (stars under 1.4 M☉)" is quite wrong. Stellar evolution ignition of helium does not occur in stars below 2.25M☉ NOT 1.4 M☉, which applies to white dwarfs and very heavy +15☉supernova cores. More precisely, helium flashes also only occur in stars above about 3.0 solar masses, not 2.25 or 1.4!! When a star starts helium burning from the new energy source, making the star shine again, and this is why it moves from right to left, increasing in surface temperature and but not changing in luminosity, mostly as the star also shrinks in size. When the star (again) crosses the instability strip, these stars become pulsating Cepheids. (The Sun will not become a Cepheid.)

These basics of stellar evolution still apply, and now have been only slightly refined.

Also reference 11 by Alan C. Edwards (1969) is now an unreliable source, which is updated significantly by many others since.

The standard and simple source for the basis of stellar evolution should be something like Iben, I. Jr (1985) "The life and times of an intermediate mass star - In isolation/in a close binary", which has all the basics and the figures to match, and can be used to be extended or refined using later sources. This useful reference has been deleted for some reason here. Looking at Figure 1 in this reference, by Iben (1985) shows clearly this fact very simply. Fig 2, shows what is happening in the core.

Later, under sub-title "Asymptotic-giant-branch phase" states "After a star has consumed the helium at the core, fusion continues in a shell around a hot core of carbon and oxygen." This is also wrong. CNO-cycle applies to star above 15 solar masses, and burning CNO does not happen in the Sun at 1.0 solar masses. Amazingly, in both sections, there is no absolutely differentiation between various masses and the evolutionary effects that we observe. I.e. Saying "star" or "a star" is just inadequate editing.

The article says, under 'Massive stars'; "If the core of the star is not too massive (less than approximately 1.4 M☉, taking into account mass loss that has occurred by this time), it may then form a white dwarf (possibly surrounded by a planetary nebula) as described above for less-massive stars, with the difference that the white dwarf is composed chiefly of oxygen, neon, and magnesium." is plainly gobbledygook and is wrong and has at least five errors within one single sentence!

This STELLAR EVOLUTION page should be blocked except to auto-confirmed users (hence pinging John), and we should seek someone with formal expertise on the subject. Stellar Evolution is the ultimate king-pin in understanding about the nature of stars, and is a crucial part of education and knowledge on a cornerstone of important astrophysical theory. I've already counted more than two dozen simple errors in this page, which continues to have reedits by individuals that do not have the necessary knowledge to edit properly here. Worst every single figure presented, either is wrong or has incorrect captions. (Except the one showing 'The evolutionary tracks of stars', but there is notable explanation of the abbreviations within the graphic.)

I would also openly request, that if editors are to make changes in the article structure, they should first discuss it within the talk page.

I'm happy to change the text here by a drastic edit, but I'd appreciate some open discussion of the flaws before I attempting to do so. Furthermore, there need some development on how this centrepiece article relates to astrophysical theory. I.e. The relationship to metallicity is a good example, as highlighted by BigSteve in the section 'Star generations' above. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Although so much thought and effort might be better directed at improving the article, in this case I would request that you don't do so until you get your facts straight. For example, your description of which stars undergo a helium flash is exactly opposite to the actual cases.  Stars *below*  (more or less, but Iben says 2.3) undergo a helium flash followed by triple alpha helium fusion in the core (followed by helium shell burning in the TP-AGB phase), while stars with higher masses ignite helium smoothly before the core becomes degenerate.  Read Iben (1985) if you don't believe me. Lithopsian (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Wow. Of all this text, and you have pick this as a bone of contention! Of all the gross errors in this whole article, and this is the most important one? The main article says stellar evolution ignition of helium does occurs in stars at 1.4 M☉, so now is this true? My point is that the evolutionary behaviour of stars is based on the masses of ~ and . There is also a big difference between helium core burning and helium shell burning. (See Iben pg.5, and figure 1 & 2). However, the article is inferring that  mass stars do this, which isn't quite true. (This is why Figure "Evolution of a Sun-like star" is quite wrong.) After stellar evolution is complete, a single  produces a Helium white dwarf of ~0.6. This applies to  too. Stars above  solar masses produce CO white dwarfs. Solar like stars have little conversion of CNO in their cores (or shells) - hence they are Helium white dwarves.
 * This reply will probably get lost in all the ranting, but let me clarify. My one example was just pointing out one of your most glaring errors, blatantly contradicting your own preferred source.  Almost everything you have stated about the evolution of stars is incorrect and can easily be checked in numerous textbooks including the ones you seem to regard as gospel.  I have not contradicted each point individually because it would be a waste of time and space.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Yes. Stars JUST *below* undergo a helium flashes, stars above  undergo helium core burning. For  it is pretty trivial.

 * Yet the whole "Stellar Evolution" article doesn't even mention it!!

 * As for "...in this case I would request that you don't do so until you get your facts straight." Um. This is a talk page, not an article edit. Clearly there are many gross errors here that need correcting. (Issues with editing the main page, then feel feel quite free to correct it or discuss it here.)

 * Q: Under the sub-title "Red-giant branch phase" is a Figure "Evolution of a Sun-like star", is this figure caption correct? Arianewiki1 (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree with Lithopsian. Arianewiki1, I'm afraid that essentially every one of your comments is inconsistent with the sources (and I would assert wrong, but my opinion counts for no more or less than yours). And the biggest point: you fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works. Administrators don't protect pages because the content is wrong. That makes it nearly impossible to improve the page, since it locks out "knowledgable" editors as effectively as it locks out unknowledgable editors (and those who make up words). And, of course, it's not the claimed expertise of the editor that matters (though I could claim similar or stronger credentials to what you have claimed, FWIW) ; it's what the reliable sources say.
 * Specifically: The existing evolution of a sun-like star is reasonably accurate. You're plain wrong on the helium flash, as already noted. Agreed that Edwards (1969) could be replaced with a more recent ref and the numbers in the sentence it's used for might change, but the qualitative idea hasn't. AGB/CNO cycle: the CNO cycle is part of H -> He burning, not C burning. (It's the faster, higher temperature H -> He burning process by comparison to the proton-proton chain.) So your AGB comment is irrelevant to the CNO cycle. The sentence that you say "is just plain gobbledygook" is mostly or entirely correct, though it (like much of the article) should have a reference; pretty much any intro astronomy textbook will do). I completely agree that stellar evolution is fundamental to pretty much everything about astronomy, but I disagree that this article has major factual errors (having given it a quick re-read). I agree that more discussion of metallicity effects would not be a bad thing, but the article is right to focus on mass as the primary effect. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 12:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * "I agree with Lithopsian. Arianewiki1, I'm afraid that essentially every one of your comments is inconsistent with the sources (and I would assert wrong, but my opinion counts for no more or less than yours)." Wow, that's a glowing endorsement. (Straight off the top, I'm put in my box. Care to actually qualify this here? Are you really judging me or the article here?)

 * I think this page needs some protection so that the article can be brought back into line as a level-4 vital article in Science article. At the moment it is far from it. Looking at the last 500-edits makes it clear how this article has degraded. Experienced editors, those assumed with many edits, which only what an auto-confirmed editor is defined as. It would just save the issues of the causes of the degradation. 'Expertise' has little do do with this, though a expert on the subject would be very useful. (I actually never said it should be me, though.) You disagree. That's OK. (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment; I thought you were requesting full protection. But read WP:PP; there's no evidence of vandalism, so I'm not sure there's a good policy reason to use even semi-protection; anonymous editors are often helpful too. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "The existing evolution of a sun-like star is reasonably accurate. You're plain wrong on the helium flash, as already noted." Now who says otherwise. The point is, how significant is the helium flash in the core? Is it observable or theoretical? The quantity of CNO produced here is absolutely insignificant, which is why the stellar atmosphere that is discarded in most hydrogen and helium with a tiny fraction of other metals. The remnant core, is most helium, being the product of hydrogen burning (fusion) when it was on the main sequence. It's white dwarf is a helium white dwarf weighing 0.6 solar masses. Stars above ~3.0 produce mostly CO white dwarf stars weighing about 0.8 solar masses. Stars above about 3.0 solar masses burn lots of helium, stars below 2.3 burn very little. The article is wrong, because it doesn't say that, and the Figure "Evolution of a Sun-like star", shows a evolution path for a star bigger than 3.0 solar masses.

 * "AGB/CNO cycle: the CNO cycle is part of H -> He burning, not C burning. " Yes, but again it is trivial. Quantitatively, for the Sun, the amount is trivial. Hence, why a He core produces a helium white dwarf. Also what is happening in the RG phase (red giant phase) is different from what is happening in the AGB phase. The quantities converted are based on the temperature and density, and it is actually when helium shell burning (shell flash) is envelope that is caused by pressure variation. after this the star 'descends' from the red giant branch. For a helium flash to occur, the mass of the core must be about 0.5 solar masses. Due to this, so red giants never obtain any helium ignition at all, mostly because of stellar winds that blow away the mass. In the AGB phase, is the time when these additional fusion events take place, and not the earlier red giant phase

 * If there is helium core burning is star greater than 3.0 masses, helium flashes can occur AFTER it, as the shells can reach the critical density. but these are thermally unstable. These lead to thermal pulses.  Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is helium core burning in 3 solar mass or larger stars; it just doesn't start with a helium flash (because the core gets hot enough to start core helium burning before the core collapses enough to be degenerate). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * "The sentence that you say "is just plain gobbledygook" is mostly or entirely correct, though it (like much of the article) should have a reference;" Um. This is the Talk page, not the article page, BTW. Where talking generally here, not specifics, and this is why I'm starting with an open discussion before the needed editing. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * There may be a misunderstanding here; I meant that the sentence currently in the article is (I think) correct but unreferenced; I didn't mean to say that what you say on the talk page needs a reference. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * "...I disagree that this article has major factual errors (having given it a quick re-read)."

 * Why? Based on what? Adjudged on what? Saying "I'm afraid that essentially every one of your comments is inconsistent with the sources (and I would assert wrong, but my opinion counts for no more or less than yours)." What 'sources' do you refer? Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources used in the article (though that statement is not attributed) as well as any standard textbook. I know Zeilik & Gregory best; I also use Prialnik. I will try to add refs for that statement and much of the rest of the article when I can (which probably won't be today as I don't have access to my library). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * If all my comments are inconsistent with the sources, without real proof, then I can only assume you comments are just a put down? If you saying; "The sentence that you say "is just plain gobbledygook" is mostly or entirely correct, though it (like much of the article) should have a reference;", then logically, saying "all my comments are inconsistent with the sources" are therefore already false.

 * Heck. I actually taught stellar evolution! Your own credentials to make these broad sweeping statements I really look forward to hearing about.  Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I should not have brought my credentials into the discussion; I apologize for that and have struck my comments. It is the sources that matter. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Further examples the first sentences, in sub-title "Red-giant-branch phase";

 * 1) "The red-giant-branch phase of a star's life follows the main sequence" Wrong. The progression between these is the Hertzsprung gap. The text is also ambiguous, because it implies stars moves down (or up) the Main Sequence. This is a very common is misconception, that I've seen too many times. The star evolves away or across from the main sequence, from left to right, before meeting the bottom of the RG Branch. Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair; there is a very brief time between the main sequence and the RGB. (It appears that I wrote that phrase, but you're right about the distinction. WP:SOFIXIT.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it is in fact true that the RGB phase follows the main sequence in that it is after the main sequence, even if there is the very-short-lived time in the Hertzsprung gap. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * 2) "Initially, the cores of red-giant-branch stars collapse, as the internal pressure of the core is insufficient to balance gravity." Wrong. It is actually also the radiative pressure that stops the core collapsing, breaking the stars equilibrium when the energy source is diminished, then the star reacts to gravity. Also radiative pressure isn't a constant.

 * 3) "This gravitational collapse releases energy, heating concentric shells immediately outside the inert helium core so that hydrogen fusion continues in these shells." Wrong. The gravitation collapse heats the core by pressure, increasing the reaction rate. The shells are formed by diffusion, where the lighter elements rise and the heavier ones fall. The reaction rate in the core heats the outer shells, and can cause fusion reactions. However, the core is also producing energy too, but at a diminished rate. This energy causes the winds, that blow the material back into interstellar space. It is at the end of in the AGB stage, when the core stops generating energy by fusion, where the radiative energy output is caused only by gravitation contraction.

 * 4) "The core of a red-giant-branch star of up to a few solar masses stops collapsing when it is dense enough to be supported by electron degeneracy pressure. Once this occurs, the core reaches hydrostatic equilibrium: the electron degeneracy pressure is sufficient to balance gravitational pressure." Eh? ALL Cores and ALL stars do this during the whole lifetime of the star!! (Should this also be related in terms of mass, temperature or density, energy transport, opacity, etc.) Why just red giants? The cause of the collapse is more simply the reduced energy production by fusion.

 * 5) "The core's gravity compresses the hydrogen in the layer immediately above it, causing it to fuse faster than hydrogen would fuse in a main-sequence star of the same mass. This in turn causes the star to become more luminous (from 1,000–10,000 times brighter) and expand; the degree of expansion outstrips the increase in luminosity, causing the effective temperature to decrease." Yes, but explain it is simpler terms Again, the hydrogen layer is caused by diffusion and the heavier elements sink, lighter ones rise.

 * 6) All these above statement are dependant on the mass of the star in question. What is stated are "a few solar masses" or "a main-sequence star of the same mass." It conveys, like the associated Figure, the wrong impression. Worse, as it implies later, not all red-giant-branch star undergo these process. I.e. The helium flash or helium core burning.

 * A good main book on Stellar Evolution and the red giant phase is "An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution" By Dina Prialnik 2nd Edition Pub. Cambridge University Press (2009) pg. 146-152 [It is a recommended and popular undergraduate textbook]  Another is by Maurizio Salaris & Santi Cassisi, "Evolution of Stars and Stellar Populations, Pub. John Wiley & Sons (2005). Arianewiki1 (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree re the Prialnik book; don't know the Salaris & Cassisi one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

 * To all: Talk page guidelines.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf)  16:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, and I'm trying. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The main evolutionary track schematic of the Sun (File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg) is correct (eg page 121 of this book), as it has a He-burning (horizontal branch) and AGB phase. However, this image File:Zams and tracks.png does not have a horizontal branch or AGB phase for the Sun., it looks like you created that image; possible to fix? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 21:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I simply modified an earlier ZAMS diagram to remove some superfluous annotations so as to provide a basis for making more diagrams. The tracks  are unchanged from the earlier diagrams.  The tracks for loss mass stars appear to stop at some arbitrary point far short of the end of their lives.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I've clarified in the caption. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Alex. This book figure you highlight is plainly wrong. It likely is exaggerated just to show the stages, but it is certainly not exampling the sun's evolution. File:Evolution of a Sun-like star.svg therefore, whoever created this, is also wrong.

 * The red giant bump (RGB) is minuscule compared to this I.e. (See Figure 1.4 Beccari & Carraro, "Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Evolution" (2014) Difference here is only about 20K NOT 2000K in the article's figure. Longest possible duration is one million years NOT 100 million!! Also compare this to Fig. 1.5, which is a 2.4 solar mass star, and Figure 1.7 shows the differences. This same paper says and explains this all this very well, ;

 * "It is important to specify that the He-flash is still not the phase of helium burning: only 5% of that element is consumed during the flash. The stable helium burning in the core according to the reaction starts along the so called Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) defined, in the HR diagram, as the locus of points in which a star is positioned, in a very short time (10^6 yr), once the helium flash is finished. Notice that the ZAHB is located on the HR diagram at a lower luminosity with respect to the tip of the RGB, as a consequence of the expansion and relaxation of the nucleus of the stars after the He-flash."

 * It says on the page under Fig. 1.5; "Since the low-mass stars reach the tip of the RGB at constant mass of the nucleus, the location of these stars on the HB depends only on the mass of the envelope. In particular, the higher this value, and therefore the greater is the total mass of the star, the redder the point of the ZAHB in which it is positioned. In fact a thicker envelope is able to “shield” better the star, which then appears cooler and redder."

 * Plainly, Helium burning in the core does not happen (if it does, it is trivial) with the RGB conditions of the future Sun, else it would make a carbon-oxygen core white dwarf. (The sun produces a helium white dwarf - many sources.) Furthermore, the energy produced cannot be as hot as it was on the main sequence, because the efficiency of the Helium burning is a tenth as productive as hydrogen burning. According to our graph this last 100 million years! (If true, all the globular cluster HR diagrams would have this stars drawn out in the plots, which isn't seen. Also the book figure also plots magnitude versus log effective temperature, while out graph is luminosity versus linear temperature. I will have to do some more background, but most of the Java software shows similar variances. Evidence suggest both figures are incorrect. Arianewiki1 (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The figure I highlight is almost exactly the same as Figure 8.19 from Prialnik's book (2000 edition), which is in turn adapted from Iben (1985). The RGB phase of a 1 solar mass star ends with a "core helium flash". Her Figure 8.19 includes the horizontal branch phase (with a thick line, meaning "long, nuclear burning evolutionary phases") as He -> C + O. Read her section 8.5, "Helium burning in the core", of which the first 2 paragraphs are about the core helium burning in 0.7-2 solar mass stars. Finally, on page 162, she notes that stars of initial masses 1 solar mass < M < 9 solar masses form CO white dwarfs, plainly contradicting your claim that stars <2.3 solar masses don't burn much helium. Note that Figures 1.3 and 1.4 of the reference you cite show only the main sequence, sub-giant branch, and RGB phases (as mentioned in section 1.3 and the caption to Figure 1.3); Figure 1.5 shows the subsequent, core helium burning horizontal branch. You're right that the helium flash is not when most of the core helium burning happens, but neither I nor the article say that. (The helium flash is the beginning of the core helium burning phase.)
 * I'm done going back and forth on claims on the talk page without any proposed edits. If you want to make improvements to the article, please do so. I've already added several references (tweaking the helium flash description in the process) and will continue to do so. It's much more productive to make cited changes to the article and then discuss if we disagree then to confront a wall of text on the talk page. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You might start by tagging specific claims in the article you object to with citation needed tags. That's much easier to address than a rant on a talk page. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice and suggestions. I so appreciate your responses to the Talk thread, and any future comments, I'll make them far more brief. If anything has come of this, it has made me more focussed on the issues here. It is crucial that this page is correct on many levels. Such discussion can only help. Thanx. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a present educator, I strongly agree that this article is dreadful. The information the reader would be seeking often simply is not there or is very confusingly presented. The problem is the more serious as this article deals with an important and tricky subject. I am currently engaged in preparing educational material on stellar evolution and this article seems next to useless for that purpose. If I had the expertise to improve this article I would. I call on experts to urgently improve this article. Don't ask me what the specific problems are, they must be obvious to everyone who has even a basic insight into the subject. Asgrrr (talk) 00:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Without specifics this comment is quite irrelevant, I am afraid. 194.230.147.232 (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Stellar evolution. 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/20120204173630/http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html to http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/boss/definition.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120608135141/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~hammer/lager/pair.pdf to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/~hammer/lager/pair.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130402053638/http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14968-first-pulsar-identified-by-its-gamma-rays-alone.html?feedId=online-news_rss20 to http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn14968-first-pulsar-identified-by-its-gamma-rays-alone.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

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 15:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stellar evolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030627124651/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2001/highlight0102_e.html to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2001/highlight0102_e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030803015427/http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2003/highlight0306_e.html to http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/HIGHLIGHT/2003/highlight0306_e.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

History Section
An 'History' section has recently been added. It seems a bit off topic as it cover the Chronology of the universe more so than the history of stellar evolution. It originally included a sentence about the formation of heavier elements and the use op copper in Mesopotamia. Both statements were untrue and Mesopotamian metallurgy is very off topic. The one remaining sentence in the section includes no citation and contains little information. Does this section need to exist? If it must to exist it needs to be expanded and sourced. Kardoen (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * How about now? Lithopsian (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just like when I removed it before it got added back. This time it was even more gibberish.Kardoen (talk) 10:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just keep at it. Try to leave constructive edit messages, plus this talk page.  Eventually they'll get the idea or get blocked.  So far, it appears to be well-meaning, but not especially valuable.  Lithopsian (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Stellar evolution


text:
Talk:Roy Orbison

Well done and comprehensive
This is a great article! I learned a lot from reading it, even as a big fan. It should be nominated for one of Wikipedia's good article categories.

Beautiful nonsense
When compared to the Everly Brothers, who often used the same session musicians, Orbison is credited with "a passionate intensity" that, according to The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll, made "his love, his life, and, indeed, the whole world [seem] to be coming to an end—not with a whimper, but an agonized, beautiful bang".

This is the kind of thing a very advanced algorithm produces these days. Apparently, you can't earn yourself an agonized bang recycling the tried and true. Or something to that effect—inscrutable to mere human comprehension. — MaxEnt 00:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobbled?
It looks like this page and other Orbison-related pages have been nobbled by or on behalf of someone called Marcel Riesco. He has inserted his name as an official biographer into the text of the articles, and also alongside authors' names in the references. According to the Library Of Congress catalogue data, the official biography was written by three of Orbison's sons and Jeff Slate, with Riesco credited as a researcher or contributor (but not on the front cover). Credit where credit's due, but his name shouldn't be more prominent than the authors'. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 * Update - I have made about forty edits on various Orbison pages and pages relating to individual songs and albums, some containing multiple instances of this name. It's possible someone might try to revert them. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Associated acts
There's no way Orbison is associated (according to the guideline) with all those acts. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roy Orbison


text:
Talk:Menlo Park, California

Assessment
a start class page, and needs more breadth in land use, ecology and infrastructure to graduate to B level. Anlace 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

"Elitist" parking policy?
In what way is prohibiting parking on the street an elitist policy? Although many people are aggravated by it, very:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you don't have a driveway or garage, you're not elite. Does anyone know the history of this policy? —James S. 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The annoying ordinance was create during WWII with the pretense to create security. Almost all residents have at one time or another gotten a warning or ticket. The police department continues with the pretense "that it helps secure the city". East Menlo Park, next to East Palo Alto (once murder capital of the USA), is reknown locally for criminal problems. (Including unjustified shooting by MPPD.) More than once citizens have mounted campaigns to eliminate this law, but to no avail. The city council refuse to remove the outdate law. There is no expectation for this to change anytime soon.
 * meatclerk 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you live in Menlo Park and don't have a driveway or garage, you are out of compliance with zoning regulations. Now that's elitist. Vectro (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical Information
Yesterday I went to the historical society to get information for this article. They will get an account and review material when posted.

 * http://www.menloparklibrary.org/HistAssoc.html

Removed or Purged Information
This information was removed or purged because it was added for questionable purposes.

See Reason for more information.

Need Confirm
Phar Lap said to have retired in MP. I think so. Will check Historical Room.

Thomas Edison removed
I reverted a change that put Thomas Edison as a Menlo Park, California resident. Edison lived in Menlo Park, New Jersey. --Stephen e nelson 00:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you. --meatclerk 06:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

 * The Edison, New Jersey article suggests that Edison lived in "Raritan Township" and it was his lab that was called Menlo Park. This seems to have been after Menlo Park, CA adopted the name though; not clear whether there's any connection.

Relevance of Power outages to this article
Aside from the obvious misspellings, does anybody know just how endemic to Menlo Park power outages are? The section seems to be based on two documented instances of such. If that is enough to justify such a section for Menlo Park, then I can think of number of other cities that would need such a section.--Coro 20:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Redirect
How come a Wiki search for Menlo Park doesn't automatically redirect to this page?
 * Because there's also a Menlo Park in NJ. Maikel (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is also a Menlo Park in Nigeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashinab (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

History section
A chunk of Menlo Park's history is not present in this article. It is covered indepth in:
 * Markoff, John. What the Dormouse Said: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped the Personal Computer Industry. New York: Penguin, 2005.

This history ties SRI International (already present in the article) with Stewart Brand's Whole Earth Catalog (based in Menlo Park) and Kepler's Books (neither of which appear on the page). Unless there is an objection, I would like to add this information to the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, please go ahead. Please cite your sources as well. Thanks. meatclerk (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll get to this in a few days. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the economy.
There's a list of famous residents but nothing on the economy and no mention of Google? Someone please amend this article! Thanks, Maikel (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Land area.
Text did not match infobox data and was internally inconsistent. D-s-weld (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

NWA recording of "Fuck tha police"
N.W.A recorded a significant and land mark track fuck tha police in 1988 in Menlo Park (this is verified by a long-standing statistic in the stat box of the track's Wikipedia page). Given the lack of musical/cultural entries for 'features' Menlo Park, I added this to the page - [|see edit].

I'm sad to see this was reverted without discussion by User:Ttonyb1. I'd like to create an opportunity for it to be discussed why this shouldn't be included here.. otherwise I'll add it back to the entry in the next day or so. Thanks 70.36.139.107 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * they're correct.. the track's page confirms it was recorded in menlo and it is verified. I agree it should be added. Gippies [gip-eez] 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gippies (talk • contribs)

Coordinate error
The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—46.251.146.206 (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the coordinates a bit, to a location more within the downtown area, also reducing their precision to the nearest 10 seconds of a degree. Is that OK, or did you want something else? Deor (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Menlo Park, California. 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/20140814141913/http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/snapshots/PL0646870.html to http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2008/snapshots/PL0646870.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Menlo Park, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017052413/http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc to http://www.calafco.org/docs/Cities_by_incorp_date.doc
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6AA10r4dh?url=http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0646870.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0646870.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203002449/http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls to http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_Table3A_RedistrictingFile.xls

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) 12:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menlo Park, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041127160134/http://www.menloparklibrary.org/ to http://www.menloparklibrary.org/

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) 20:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

What needs to be done to improve this article
I think we have done sufficient work to get Menlo Park to C level but we should discuss what needs to be done to make it better. --Erp (talk) 04:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 * Menlo Park, California in the 1960s and 1970s was associated with the New Left movement and activism (in part due to the proximity of Stanford), I don't see any of this in the history section right now. It would improve this article. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

History section - Menlough, County Galway
Someone had changed the name of the location of the city of origin Menlough to Menlo for Dennis J. Oliver and D.C. McGlynn. However the two citations used clearly say "Menlough" in County Galway so this error was corrected today. Adding a note here in case we need to discuss further. Jooojay (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Hi . I spotted the "disputed" tag when attempting a cleanup at Menlo, County Galway. In all honesty, I don't know which is correct. But, while the villages of Menlo, County Galway and Menlough, County Galway are ~40km distant apart, each article makes the claim that Oliver and McGlynn were/are from that village. It seems unlikely that the men were from both places. Or that one was from "Menlo" and the other from "Menlough". And, while the sources do refer to Menlough, to make matters confusing a plaque was unveiled on the pier at "Menlo", suggesting the latter. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can weigh-in. Guliolopez (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi . I've since read the sources that you added to Menlough. And they clearly clarify that the Menlo/Menlough in question is the one near Galway city. Not the one 40km away near Mountbellew. In all honesty I think the mistake is your own. The article which should be linked here is Menlo, County Galway. And the plaque on the pier at Menlo, County Galway would seem to support that. Guliolopez (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, thank you for clarifying and clean up! I think I was confused - the names and counties are basically the same. Jooojay (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

My Contribute about Mangyan in Mindoro and Chinese National
Dito 180.195.28.57 (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Menlo Park, California


text:
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia logos

Older discussion
I very, very much doubt that I'm the first person to point this out, but wouldn't it be better (more consistent, more logical) to use the same logo for both wikipedia and meta wikipedia, or if not, then if a different logo is used for meta, wouldn't it be better to use one that actually says meta on it rather than just a different version of the same? --Lezek

 * Thanks for volunteering to make a new Meta logo. :) --Brion

 * You read my mind, that was precisely why I was asking ;) --Lezek

Wikipedia: We can sure as hell shovel it. ;-) -- Tarquin 15:30 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Thank you, Tarquin. Your suggestion will be given all due consideration. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:58 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Invalid logo votes
Moved from Village pump on Thursday, September 25th, 02003.

For those who already cast their votes on the meta, BEWARE:

Your vote would be invalid if you do not have an separate account on meta or if you homepage on meta does not redirect to your homepage on a wikipedia project of which you have more than 10 contributions.

My own vote was classified as invalid! I make my homepage a redirect now and hope it is fixed. But there are still wikipedians do not know that.

-wshun 19:12, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * To clarify: your user page on meta does not have to redirect to your user page on one of the language-Wikipedias, but it does have to point there in some way - just a link will do. This is to avoid people making lots of duplicate accounts and getting more than one vote. --Camembert

 * Don't you think it's clear enough on the ballot page? CGS 19:26, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC).

 * I first thought that a user page on meta is sufficient. Sure there are wikipedians fail to read it. :-( --wshun 19:33, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The Current Logo?
Where is the current Wikipedia logo located? It doesn't seem to be on the page...

New Logo Proposal
The logo can't be alphabet-exhastive. Wikipedia needs something truly universal, like this: * Take the logo on the lower right: A blossom for unfurling knowledge. Hibiscus because "wiki" is the hawaiian word for "fast." Arrows pointing out in every cardinal direction. A puzzle piece in the negative space. Oh, and four people leaning into an open central square, collaborating. I know I'm not alone here.

Character errors in Logo
Discussion and Petition still ongoing... --Quiddity 18:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Font?
Anyone know what the font for the Wikipedia logo is?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.171.7.6 (talk • contribs).

 * I assume it's Garamond or Cloister, but check with others. Mabuse 17:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hoefler Text. --Kjoonlee 11:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Chinese character "祖"?
Can anyone tell me why is the Chinese character on the logo "祖"? --Voidvector 09:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't 祖 but 袓. I don't know why, though. --Kjoonlee 11:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, a character that has fallen out of common usage. I thought it was 祖 cause that was written on Wikipe-tan. --Voidvector 12:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Jumping into a 5 year old discussion to say that the character has not ‘fallen out of common usage’ – 祖父 and 祖母 are the words for ‘Grandfather’ and ‘Grandmother‘ in many dialects of Chinese, and I'm sure the character is used in other words too. Pokepal101 (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to an article in the NY Times (see the archives of WP:SIGNPOST for a link), some letters were chosen because they are pronounced similar to "Wi" and some letters were chosen because they look interesting. Since 袓 isn't pronounced similar to "Wi" in any of the languages I know, I guess it was chosen because it looks interesting. --Kjoonlee 17:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend the character 维, the first character in the Chinese phrase 维基百科 (Wikipedia) instead of this confusing 祖.--尖尖的鹿角 (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Text of original logo
Does anyone know what the text in Image:Old wikipedia logo.png is taken from? - BanyanTree 08:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The original contributor (2002!) is still editing, I'd ask him. --Quiddity 16:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not 100% that the uploader is the creator, since the description implies that it was created pre-2001, but I've asked if he can drop in and enlighten us.  Cheers, BanyanTree 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm not the creator of the original logo, so I don't have any information about how it was made. I'll see if I can find out who created it. -- Stephen Gilbert 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember Larry saying something about it once, but I can't find the link (could be lost - much of the 2001 stuff is). But contact Larry Sanger at Citizendium. You could also try asking User:Tim Shell as he would have been the one to load it onto the server when the first instance of UseModWiki was installed. Manning (talk) 13:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems it's Bjørn Smestad. Found it while browsing through Nupedia archived pages in Wayback Machine site. In this archived page of submitted logos from Nupedia site says at the bottom "Logo ideas posted with permission of their designers. Click on a logo to go to its designer's website." Image link in that page is pointing to this archived page: "Assistant Professor Bjørn Smestad". Didn't found any account in english Wikipedia with his name. May be he was only involved in Nupedia project. Mosca (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually, I just realized today that the logo I submitted that many years ago were ever used for anything at all... I am amazed. I must admit I was never much involved in either Nupedia or Wikipedia. The text of the quote is from Lewis Carroll's "Euclid and his Modern Rivals". Bjornsm (talk) 11:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Favicon
We need a new favicon in my opinion. This one looks kind of boring. We need something like a smaller version of the current puzzle logo, but with a W in the middle or to the side. Any comments would be helpful.– Sidious1701(talk • email • todo) 23:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Smoothing the logo?
This has been bugging me for a while, but if you look at the edges of the Wiki "globe" in the corner of the screen there, you'll notice a jaggy white border. Compare this to German or French wikis, and you can see what I'm talking about. I don't have either the imaging know-how or the privileges to fix it myself, but surely someone does? Justme8800 23:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Mailing list 3d discussion
There is currently a thread on the foundation mailing list, discussing both a 3d version of the globe with the hidden pieces filled in, as well as the problems seen in the current logo. Just a heads up. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott McCloud
Does anyone know if the puzzle logo was inspired by a very similar image in Scott McCloud's 2000 Reinventing Comics? (I'm guessing not, given discussion above, but I'm curious. Anyone?) Thmazing (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Renewing discussion
Please participate in the discussion at meta:Talk:Wikipedia/Logo, which has official support, and appears to be moving forward. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Why there is "Й" in the logo?
Why there is "Й" in the logo? It means "j", not "w"! Kubek 15 ]] $4(Sign!) (Contribs)  (UBX) 12:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did they get rid of "Й"? It was much cooler than the current. (Stepanstas (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Devnagari is not correct in the logo
In the current logo, the devnagari script, which is used for languages like sanskrit, hindi, marati etc., is not shown in the correct way. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.113.218 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem
The Indic text on the center-left side of the logo is NOT correctly formed. It shows the ि trailing to the right of the character when it should in fact be attached to the character to the LEFT of it, like this:

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/2415/78634251.jpg GSMR (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom left 'unknown' character - replace it with something Klingon!
Title above says it all. Why not eh? 203.219.156.86 (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is the 3D model file?
The 3d model constructed for the new logo should be available in the name of openness! Where can i find it? --Beao 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Second this. Where is .blender file? -- AS sa 13:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Elvish
Given that no one on the Wikipedia payroll will admit that there is anything valuable, or anything at all for that matter, inside the puzzle globe, and given further that one (i.e., yours truly) does not see any Elvish on the globe, one is left to assume that one or more Cabals have conspired to hide all the Elvish on the inside. For shame! (Seriously, though, include Klingon but not Elivish?! Who forgot the Elvish?) kcylsnavS (kalt) 22:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Klingon is no longer on the globe anyway. Powers T 23:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it's OK with me to put Klingon on the en.w globe. Just put Elvish on with it. (My opinions on this matter are not to be construed as an admission that I've every read anything by Tolkien. Not into fantasy: SF rules.) kcylsnavS (kalt) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How about putting a real language on, like Irish uncial dotted g or s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.78.56 (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A real language? So Klingon and Elvish were fully developed for nothing, eh? Don't forget the existence of a Klingon Dictionary. Do your homework.

Logo not updated in (at least a few) Wikipedias in others languages
Like German [], Italian [], Portugese [] and French [] Wikipedias, as of the signing of this comment. Even http://wikipedia.org/ [] has the old olgo in the centre. Is this the way it should be? It seems like the new logo just for "testing out" in English Wikipedia... =D User:KpufferfishUser talk:Kpufferfish•Special:Contributions/Kpufferfish 02:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

As a side note, perhaps we could describe the characters in the new logo similar to what we had done for the third. Plase improve/edit (the table I mean, not this comment). I'm far from any alphabet expert or something (For most part, I'm just looking at the picture name). Note the many blanks too. User:KpufferfishUser talk:Kpufferfish•Special:Contributions/Kpufferfish 03:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Note: table removed since now it is included in the page, to prevent duplication of effort/maintenance --Waldir talk 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. But the Javanese character on the leftmost column is still missing... User:KpufferfishUser talk:Kpufferfish•Special:Contributions/Kpufferfish 07:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The main list of updated logos is at Wikipedia/2.0, and the main discussions about the new logo are primarily at commons:Talk:Wikipedia/2.0, and here at WP:VPT. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The lost character
I've completed the table with the characters of the old logo. Now all of them have images for illustration, in case the reader doesn't have the appropriate fonts to render the texts. However, there's still one character that resists identification: the one on the lower left corner. Can you find out anything about that? --Waldir talk 11:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 * It is   ᡅ    U+1845 on Mongolian script —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.88.82.94 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Thanks! :D --Waldir talk 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewing
Is anyone here able to see all of the font representations (below the individual glyph images) in the table? I can see most, but only about 85-90% I think. If you can see all of them, and you're using a Windows PC and Firefox, can you please tell us what your font settings are? kcylsnavS 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You just need to add more fonts (I believe), but I'm not sure which. I get about 85% of them too (For example, I'm missing these from the first 3 lines: Khmer vo, Javanese wa, Gothic vinja, Gurmukhī vava). However I can't read any of those languages, so I haven't tried too hard to fix it... See Help:Multilingual support for our help page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added images to all the glyphs, so now anyone will be able to see them, and since they're vectorial images, one can even zoom at will :). I tried to recreate them as closely to the original as possible, using the Code2000 font that Nohat mentioned he had used (incidentally, some of the text glyphs will become visible if you install the Code2000 font in your computer, particularly the Klingon one).
 * Now, while some of the glyphs only had to be slightly distorted (vertical compression, mostly) to fit the original design, several others had no close match (or no match at all) in Code2000. These include:
 * The Japanese wa+i (the Code2000 version looks different from the logo, but I uploaded it anyway since the image we had was even less like it)
 * The Tibetan wa+i (the glyphs aren't implemented in Code2000 at all)
 * The Greek omega (the Code2000 version with the tonos doesn't look like the one in the logo, but the omega alone is pretty similar; I'm wondering if Nohat drew the omega with Code2000 and the tonos using another font)
 * The Korean hangul wi (The Code2000 version looks different from the logo; contrary to the Japanese character, the current version looks more like the logo so I didn't upload the Code2000 glyph)
 * The remaining ones seem to have been originally produced with Code2000. I am particularly happy with finally providing an undistorted version of the Klingon character (the previous one was simply cut from the logo, thus keeping the perspective distortion). I ask your help to find out the font used for the characters listed above, so we can finally have an accurate archive of this chapter of our history. Any guesses? --Waldir talk 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Open use logos?
I'm kind of throwing this here, because I'm not in the mood to write a huge, detailed proposal to the Foundation just yet, and thoughts might be appreciated first. Should Wikipedia have an "open use" logo? Debian has separate logos: one is Free™®©, the other is strictly reserved for officially endorsed products. There are Free products that do have a strongly defended logo and branding (Firefox, Java and, um, Wikipedia), but one look at the small schism between Debian and Firefox shows that having a single, non-free logo and trademark in place is an invitation to do a wholly lawsuit-compliant fork that doesn't benefit the end user much. There's a similar situation with the Java programming language: The platform is open source, the branding isn't - but they put the mascot under BSD license, so at least people can create spiffy web buttons without signing their soul to Sun Microsystems the Devil Oracle. (See, it's getting worse every year.) In my opinion, Wikipedia could benefit from officially sanctioned "open use" logos. An alternate version of the puzzle ball might be confusing to the end users, but maybe open logos could be based on the word mark portion of the logo? The "W" favicon is pretty widely known already, isn't it? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting idea. I'd like some contextual examples explained, to better understand. Questions (I realize a lot of answers depend on which designs are hypothetically chosen, so just generally/abstractly)...:
 * I'd be curious to learn of applicable situations for the "open use" logo, and by contrast, which would continue to use the "official" logo. I assume the official items would include obvious items like WP:Merchandise (including PediaPress publications and WP:Wikipedia CD Selection), but what else?
 * I assume that WP:Banners and buttons fits in here somewhere, but how? Would fan-made buttons and banners need to use the "open use" logo instead of the trademarked logo?
 * Who is currently using an official logo, that we would end up requesting to switch to this new open logo? Which of the 5000+ items in commons:Category:Copyright by Wikimedia would be effected? Which of the internet mirrors?
 * So basically, apart from the design of the thing, what exactly will people end up arguing about, if this is implemented? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Regarding design: I agree that the favicon (File:Wikipedia's W.svg, or now File:Wikipedia's W (Linux Libertine).svg) is well known. Slightly complicating (but probably resolvable) is that Wiktionary currently uses the same favicon (see commons:Wikimedia).
 * Just for wild ideas, our globe logo could be transformed into any Map projection... (Done already? I haven't seen any before). HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Icon transparency
Hi. Not sure this is the right place, because this has nothing to do with the Wikipedia logo itself, instead to do with the little "W" icon you see in the address bar or next to tabs. If you look at this image, you can see that the Commons logo is without a background (looks darker because of the theme I'm using), while the Wikipedia logo is with a while square background. Wouldn't it be better if the background of the "W" icon could be removed too? Reh man  02:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the favicon; see File:Wikipedia-favicon.png. Goodvac (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the above file actually the file that is currently used as the Wikipedia Favicon? If not, is it any one of these? Reh  man  01:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Logo moving
Every time I open a new page, the logo moves from left to right, which slows down the opening time several seconds, each time. Is this part of the maintenance thing that was being mentioned yesterday, or is this permanent? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Logo usage
What is the Usage guideline for the famous Puzzle Logo?--Sandbag for smash bros 4 (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See the links in the commons:Template:Copyright by Wikimedia template, particularly the FAQ at the bottom of the Trademark policy page. HTH. –Quiddity (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Latin and Cyrillic "vev?"
The section on the new logo has a table of the characters on the logo, including Armenian, Latin and Cyrillic "vev." Curiously, neither the Latin or Cyrillic letters are named "vev." What gives? 74.60.134.199 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Indeed, this article is on the wrong side of the border to gibberish. It doesn't list the Unicode points supposed to be shown, it doesn't mirror the order of code points on its source for no obvious reason, and as you said it doesn't explain why g and the Cyril letter are tagged as vev. I can only guess that this is no nonsense or even vandalism, but some kind of "phonetic wannabe-W-alike glyph sort order". The Logo history is less obscure. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

 * No problem! If there are still issues, let me know, or fix them yourself if you can :) --Waldir talk 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

5,000,000 article celebration
Surely this logo should be in this internal Wikipedia page? I saw it when Wikipedia was celebrating its 5,000,000th article. If so, what sort of stuff should I put into this page? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia logo is in prominent use on HGwiki.net
See:

http://hgwiki.net/Main_Page

--Kevjonesin (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Klingon replaced by Ge'ez
''I just put this section onto , and only then checked the page history and saw that the previous entry was in June 2013, so the page isn't active and probably no one will see it there. So... pasting here.''

Wikipedia logo : § Current logo says
 * The new logo was rolled out on the projects in May 2010. It features the new 3D rendering of the puzzle globe, with corrected characters (and the Klingon character replaced by a Ge'ez character).

The Ge'ez character is ው, U+12CD ETHIOPIC SYLLABLE WE. In the table in Ge'ez script#Ge'ez abugida it is in the second section of the table, second row (consonant Wäwe), sixth column (vowel ə [ɨ]), so it is pronounced [wɨ] (IPA), which is pretty close to the first syllable of "Wikipedia" in English.

However, Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos : § The finalized logo : § Alphabets represented in the logo doesn't reflect that change, though a reader would expect "The finalized logo" to refer to the current one. The table of characters there (row 2, column 4, corresponding to the location on the jigsaw globe illustrated there) has

I'm rather afraid to edit that table and section. Can someone else make the appropriate fix?

--Thnidu (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Paul Otlet drawing
Someone pointed out to me that there is a drawing made by the information scientist Paul Otlet (1868-1944) that looks eerily similar not only to the Wikipedia puzzle ball logo, but also to the front page. Check out this video at 1:11 link here. I still don't know the original source of the drawing but am attempting to track it down. If I understand correctly from WP:Wikipedia logos, the third logo was the first iteration of puzzle ball, with the vote going towards User:Paul Stansifer's design, then User:Nohat's modifications are what resulted in the "silver ball" or "silver puzzle ball" design that was accepted. So I'd like to ask Paul Stansifer and Nohat directly; were you aware of Paul Otlet or his drawings when you were constructing your designs? Or, does anyone else have information as to this possible origin? Hexatekin (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

 * I have never heard of Paul Otlet or, to the best of my knowledge, ever seen any of his drawings. Nohat (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Wikipedia?

While investigating the hypothetical question, I came across this talk page on French Wikipedia. It is unclear whether a final proposal for a coat of arms for Wikipedia was determined. In any case, I collected the images in the Commons category linked here.Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems highly hypothetical, and if it were about any other website or organization, I'm sure that we would have never mentioned this in the article without solid sources. I'll be bold and remove it again. effeietsanders 04:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Case style of slogan
Is there a reason why the English Wikipedia's slogan ("The Free Encyclopedia") is rendered with each word capitalised? The other Wikipedias, to my knowledge, seem to have the slogan in sentence case (e.g. "L'encyclopédie libre" for French, "La enciclopedia libre" for Spanish, "L'enciclopedia libera" for Italian). It seems to me that the English version should also be rendered in the same way (i.e. as "The free encyclopedia").  RAVEN PVFF  | talk ~ 06:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Flag
The article content now starts with: "Wikipedia's first true logo was an image that was originally submitted by Bjørn Smestad for a Nupedia logo competition which took place in 2000. Jimmy Wales (Jimbo) thought it would be a much better logo than the flag, and it remained for the next eight months". It briefly mentions 'the flag', but never actually states that 'the flag' (which probably refers to the American flag, which I heard more often being mentioned as the first file that was used as logo) was used as logo. Could someone confirm that this was indeed the case, and can we then make that explicit without keeping it this vague? effeietsanders 04:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

20th Anniversary coming up
I just had a thought as we are approaching the 20th anniversary - do we want to add a puzzle piece to the globe to celebrate 20 years of building this repository? VanIsaacWScont 09:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion the Tocharian syllable "Wi" [[file:Tocharian Wi.svg|25px]] would be interesting in terms of its appearance, the history of Tocharian within Indo-European language studies, as well as demonstrating the alternate "Fremdzeichen" letterforms of Tocharian not found in other Brahmi-derived scripts. The piece could go to the right of the Ge'ez (Ethiopic) "wə", so that the new piece would be barely visible, but the marking would only be seen from alternate views. VanIsaacWScont 05:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia logo
I have two questions about the logo on Wikipedia.

 * 1) The logo, where it says "WIKIPEDIA The Free Encyclopedia," I noticed that the word WIKIPEDIA is probably written in an all caps font, usually the shorter letters are technically the lowercase ones. Is it written as "WikipediA" in HTML text, with a capital A at the end? It could be true, because there is a redirect to Wikipedia at WikipediA.
 * 2) Does each character on the Wikipedia sphere stand for the first letter of Wikipedia in each language? Probably not, since Greek Ω is on the list, but the Greek word for Wikipedia is Βικιπαιδια. In any case, please answer my questions if you have time, and thank you. Gioguch (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Three-Layered Cake Logo on Wikipedia Home Page - Melting Trump or 20th Anniversary of Wikipedia?
I can't find any documentation on the Three-Layered Cake Logo that I see on the meta home page. I'm guessing its an image for the 20th anniversary of Wikipedia. But the W atop the cake looks suspiciously like a crown, the frosting looks like yellow hair, and the two red candies look like eyes. And the way the frosting is dripping suggests melting... So what I also see is a certain famous political figure with royal ambitions melting into a hole following the 2020 elections. I realize Wikipedia is politically-neutral, but still, as an news-obsessed American, am I reading too much into this image? Thanks Happy temporizer (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Edits
Anyway, I realized some accidental un-capitalization. I fixed those. Continue this page if you edit too. 22:23, 26 December 2023 (UTC) from a non-user

title: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia logos