text:
Talk:Metafiction

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jazmin.garcia15. Peer reviewers: Sashari29.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Question
Would the following passage from Huck Finn be considered metafictional?

 * You don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; :but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly.
 * There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth.

--Savethemooses 22:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks it to me. Scix 02:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Can't believe no one has added it yet. It was the first thing I thought of, and is the first words of the novel.  75.225.109.210 (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Not metafiction. Though Huck Finn, as a picaresque after the fashion of Don Quixote, calls into question what is real and our relationship with what is real vs. the stories we like to tell ourselves, so the novel is in a way a story about the stories we tell ourselves so as to obscure reality with on overlay of what is often pure self-interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.207.17 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It swerves near metafiction in its third-person mention of its own author as the author of Tom Sawyer, but that's about as close as it gets. I think Twain was merely trying to call attention to using Huck as a first-person narrator, a change from the third-person narration of Tom Sawyer. He calls into question "Twain's" reliability as a narrator (while averring that "mainly he told the truth") but he doesn't call into question his own reliability as a narrator or bring attention to his own account as being a fictional work. Schoolmann (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Should lotr be metafiction and why? It's treated as straight fiction by the author. 2804:14D:5CE0:B367:B127:4756:1A73:7EE7 (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Discworld
Some of Terry Pratchett's Discworld stuff probably belongs here: Witches Abroad seems like a good choice. And a case could be made for Don Quixote. Opinions? Vicki Rosenzweig 01:38, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's been quite a while since I've read any Pratchett, so I'm not sure. I think Don Quixote is not self-conscious enough to count as metafiction, though. The Pratchett novel I know best is Good Omens, which has enough metafictional parts that I wouldn't be surprised.

 * Pratchett should definitely be in here; "Narrativium" is an elemental particle in the Discworld, and his "The Science of Discworld" series with Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen features our world as a magical creation within the Discworld, which the characters travel to and experiment with. PhilHibbs | talk 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Seinfeld
A sequence of episodes in the series portrayed the cast as writing a sitcom that they referred to as "a show about nothing" which was a self-reference to the very sitcom they were in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.88.30 (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The episodes about the cast pitching the show Jerry to NBC executives is exactly the topic being referenced here. 75.225.109.210 (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Witches Abroad
Ahh, I just found a site here with a little summary of Witches Abroad--"The sheer power of the Story" sounds very metafictional to me. If the Story (as a capitalized concept) plays a major role in the novel, then add it, by all means. Thirdreel 16:27, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I was thinking of Witches Abroad also, but I thought it probably wasn't appropriate. The reason is that while one of the characters is driven by an attempt to make life work like it does in a story, the protagonists are driven by exactly the opposite - i.e. by an insistence that life should be lifelike, and that making it storylike is a manipulation of people. If anything I would say its anti-metafiction.

Hamlet
While we're on the subject, Hamlet? Sure Hamlet has a strong sense of destiny, but is that enough to class it as metafiction? Many people in real life have a strong sense of destiny. I can't think of anything in Hamlet designed to remind the reader that they are watching a work of fiction (Now Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, that's another story - if you'll pardon the expression).

 * I consider Hamlet to have a metafictional element in the Hamlet's use of the play "The Murder of Gonzago", which mirrors Claudius's own supposed crime, in attempt to prick Claudius's conscience. --FOo

 * I see your point. Aren't there some stronger examples though? The play-within-a-play doesn't, for me, call attention to the fictional nature of the story; at least not nearly as much as Adapation or The Princess Bride (the book rather than the movie by the way). Again I would think that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern is a better example. DJ Clayworth 13:33, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * If the presence of a play-within-a-play identified metafiction (it doesn't, because The Murder of Gonzago is 'happening' within the fiction, right there at the Danish court) then the rustics' play in  A Midsummer Night's Dream would be a metafiction too (but it's not). The Chorus' address to the audience in Henry V is more metafictional. Metafictions 'break the spell.' An author's aside to the reader, as in Fielding or Thackeray, manipulates the situation, but from outside the fiction. User:Wetman..

 * I'm going to pull Hamlet from the list for a number of reasons. While it has metafctional elements, it's not in itself a work of metafiction.  It doesn't have the self-consciousness present in most metafiction.  For instance, Breakfast of Champions is, at its heart, a book about Vonnegut's writerly persona; Hamlet is not a play about Shakespeare (except in some convoluted modern reading.)  A lot of metafiction is "writing a book about writing a book."  There's no way to summarize House of Leaves, for instance, without mentioning that it is a book about someone writing a book about someone who wrote a book about someone who made a movie.  No one, however, would summarize Hamlet as "a play about someone performing a play."  The metafictional elements are incidental to the plot.

 * Most of all, I'm going to pull it because of the intention of the list. If someone asked me, "What is metafiction?" I would suggest they read certain texts to get a feel for the literary movement.  Calvino, certainly.  Alameddine, certainly.  Shakespeare, no.  If I was trying to get a feel for metafictional theatre, I'd suggest something more like Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author. Thirdreel 11:54, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Hamlet together with Don Quixote are two of the most remarked examples of metafiction in scholarship. Not only the play-inside-the-play thing (which is enough by itself) but all the questions he rises about acting and theatre. Why should the actor cry about Hecuba, who is Hecuba for him (remember?). The monologue mourning the death of the actor, where he takes his skull, is maybe the second most known one after the "to be or not to be" one. Midsummer Night Dream is indeed metafictional, so are most Shakespear's plays, an so is all Barroque literature. Jorge Luis Borges argues that Don Quixote and Hamlet make as wonder if we, ourselves, are not fictional character being read or watched. Of course, Pirandello is more explicite, but Hamlet it's a must in such a list. See [literawiki on metafiction]--Rataube 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Literawiki is a reliable source. Neither Hamlet nor Don Quixote are examples of metafiction. I agree with User:Wetman that "The Murder of Gonzago" is merely a part of the fictional world and doesn't call attention to Hamelt itself as a play; now, if Hamlet had written a play called "Hamlet" which was imagined in the fictional world as being the same play we are watching/reading, then that would be metafiction. And the skull is that of a clown whom Hamlet remembers as a childhood playmate, not an actor. Hamlet remarks on the Hecuba speech merely as one of his frequent self-castigations regarding his own delay in taking revenge. All that happens within the fictional world; it doesn't call attention to its own fictionality. Schoolmann (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

List of metafiction
I'm becoming concerned that this article is being taken over by this growing list of metafictional novels. I think we should cull the list now and move all but the best entries over to List of Metafictional Novels or just delete them. If we were to delete them there would be the possibility of creating a category for metafictional novels which would create a list of the existing books which would be easier to maintain.

Any thoughts about this?

Well I went ahead and moved all the examples to List of metafictional texts. Some of the examples should probably be moved back but no more than five of the best. --Kevin 19:23, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is important. This list has become ridiculous. If I have time this week, I'll work on it a bit. Not only are there too many listed, but obvious ones (like Mark Twain and Seinfeld) are overlooked while people seem to be simply listing their favorites.

Mise en abyme
There's a counterpart of english-american metafiction in France, which calls itself "mise en abyme" (ofcourse as you already know). So, what's the diference? It's one of the crucial aspect of postmodernist fictional evolution, isn't it... Some low-costed theorists indiferently group them terming "embedding" or self-reference. Godel's already self-reference, no less than Hegel, everything interesting in any symbolism. There is certain diference. For example, as English fiction focuses on personae (Faulkner is extreme in this sense), French one picks up some concrete medial objects (journal, lettre, &c.) when embedding. Shakespeare was no doubt one of the original models for French medial embedding scheme, though the intentionality is parallel to metafiction. That causes alternative reading effects.

Third approach may be sought in minor fictions like of Philip K. Dick. (Not that academic VALIS! Ubik, Flow my tears,... are neither personal nor medial, for exemple. They also are great metafictional art work.)

--NoirNoir 06:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Proust?
Would In Search of Lost Time be considered metafictional? --Tothebarricades 01:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Odds are good. Scix 02:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A contradiction
The definition of "metafictional" in Metafiction (A) contradicts the definition in Fictional fictional character (B). Anthony Appleyard 06:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC):-

 * (A) Metafiction is a kind of fiction which self-consciously addresses the devices of fiction. Some common metafictive devices include:-
 * (1) A novel about a person writing a novel.
 * (2) A novel about a person reading a novel.
 * (3) A story that addresses the specific conventions of story, such as title, paragraphing or plots.
 * (4) A non-linear novel, which can be read in some order other than beginning to end.
 * (5) Narrative footnotes, which continue the story while commenting on it.
 * (6) A novel in which the author is a character.
 * (7) A story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story.
 * (8) Characters who do things because those actions are what they would expect from characters in a story.
 * (9) Characters who express awareness that they are in a work of fiction.

A notable example is Captain Proton, which is meta-fictional within the Star Trek fictional scenario. Anthony Appleyard 07:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (B) Something is metafictional if:
 * It only exists in the fictional world of a story.
 * That story was written within another fictional world and its text (or movie reels or whatever) does not exist in full in our world.

My (= Anthony Appleyard 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)) guesses are:- Anthony Appleyard 07:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (1) A novel X about a person writing a novel Y.
 * (2) A novel X about a person reading a novel Y.
 * In both cases, the story Y exists in the world of story X. Y is metafiction if definition (B) above is satisfied.
 * (3) A story X that addresses the specific conventions of story, such as title, paragraphing or plots.
 * Only if a specific story Y exists in the world of story X.
 * (4) A non-linear novel, which can be read in some order other than beginning to end.
 * No.
 * (5) Narrative footnotes, which continue the story while commenting on it.
 * No.
 * (6) A novel in which the author is a character.
 * No. This mostly means that the "I" character is not involved in the common story writer's dilemma between having to keep repeating names and making pronoun reference ambiguities.
 * (7) A story that anticipates the reader's reaction to the story.
 * This seems to be includable in (5). Example please?
 * (8) Characters who do things because those actions are what they would expect from characters in a story.
 * Example please?
 * (9) Characters who express awareness that they are in a work of fiction.
 * Example please?

I think all of these can be reasonably argued to be "metafiction". I have had a go at the language on both pages, and removed the link to this talk page. — PhilHibbs | talk 13:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Anthony Appleyard 15:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (4): If e.g. a story X contains a note "If you don't want to read through all the space battle, skip from here to chapter 11.", that would satisfy definition (4): but how would that make the story metafiction? Anthony Appleyard 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (5): Example please. Much of the text in a story could be treated as commenting on previous parts of the text of the story. Anthony Appleyard 15:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (6): "A novel in which the author is a character." can have two meanings:-
 * (i): For example, I wrote a long Transformers story at this link where (in its early episodes) Optimus Prime is "I", but how does that make the story metafictional?
 * (ii): I am Anthony Appleyard. If I wrote a story that Anthony Appleyard was a commando frogman and describing heroic exploits, that would involve me as a character; it would be untruth, but how would it be metafiction?
 * (7): The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe contains a sentence saying that "If I [= the author] describe these monsters in detail, your parents would probably not let you read this book."; this seems to satisfy definition (7), but how is it metafiction?

Some newspaper comic strips, including "Arlo and Janis" and "Foxtrot" have had metafictional elements. In one example, Arlo, speaking for the comic strip writer, asked the readers to vote on Janis' new hairdo.

Greek Chorus
Does a Greek Chorus count as meta? Scix 02:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since a chorus is an integral part of all Classical Greek drama, I hardly consider it to be metafiction, just a dramatic convention. Classical Greek theatre was never meant to be a literal depiction of actual events even when the plays were based on actual historic themes. The chorus help advance the narrative much in the same way that modern filmakers use devices such as smash cuts. 75.225.109.210 (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fourth Wall
Are some of these examples not actually meta fiction (A fiction about fiction or a fiction within fiction) but rather breaking the fourth wall? The fourth wall referring to the outside world, the readers world compared to the fictional. Or to put it in a new way, is meta fiction (meta = above btw) including all definitions, including fourth wall breaking (referring to the reader's world) and actually meta (being beyond the pale of fiction but not necessarily hinting into the reader's world but rather commenting on it without calling it out).

Reading the SG1 example made me think of that, as its a clear example of breaking the fourth wall but it really doesn't show any insight into the real world.

Zanduar 05:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

 * More strictly, breaking the fourth wall is any time when the characters or the work itself acknowledges the existence of the audience. This is slightly different from the most general case of meta-references, which are any references by the work or characters to the fact that they are characters in a book, movie, video game, etc. The theme show music thing falls into that category, but does not directly acknowledge the existence of the audience, so it may not be breaking the fourth wall. However, it definitely strains or even breaks the suspension of disbelief.
 * Meta-fiction should strictly only be fiction inside a fictional work. Meta-fiction could perhaps include the Red Book of the LOTR series, because that multi-volume book is without a doubt a reference to the real world books themselves. Presumably the Red Book even references itself in the same places. So within the LOTR universe, it is a mere meta-reference in a historical book, but to us, it is the fictional book inside itself, so one could argue it is a meta-fictional device.
 * However from the article it is clear that while meta-fiction should be merely fiction inside fiction, the term has been abused to encompass anything and everything that might strain the suspension of disbelief. But it also includes some things that don't necessarily stretch the suspension of disbelief at all, such as the example of Clerks referencing the Star Wars series. Tacvek (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Stargate: Wormhole Extreme did break the fourth wall but only as a humor bit, as I recall. In the bit, one of the actors who played one of the ... actors in W E was unable to remember at which level reality actually is. Lots42 (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Breakfast Of Champions
This article suggests that Beakfast of Champions is a novel in which the author is a character and also says that it is not in two contraditory bullets. Idk which one is true. Could someone fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Clive Barker
Didn't Clive Barker write a book where the plot was a demon communicating via the very book the reader was holding? Lots42 (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rhinoceros
In Eugene Ionesco's play Rhinoceros, a character asks another if he's seen any of Ionesco's plays, and recommends he do so. Does that qualify as metafiction? And if so, is it a different type than those listed here, or does it fit into one of the subcategories? Markekeller (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting note or five
There's a Buffy novel I wanna dig up where several of the female characters express admiration for the looks of Seth Green, actor. The metafiction being that Seth Green plays the character Oz, a prominent character in the show. Just thought it might be noteable. There's the bit in the article about television shows mentioning their own actors but not tie-in novels. And now that I think about it...what about real shows mentioned in a fictional context? Buffy the show mentions 'Enterprise' starring Scott Bakula. So they established their have their own version of Bakula and all related actors that exist in a world of demons and vampires and now I've gone cross-eyed. Lots42 (talk) 13:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Get Rid of Lists Altogether!! Propose New Article-
There are several problems with Various devices of metafiction and especially under the subheading Some common metafictive devices include: What apparently started as a list of Devices of Metafiction has seriously degenerated because of a determination to include many examples of each device. Now it reads much more like a list of works that contain Metafiction, and in fact, this Discussion is also becoming such a list.! Such a list might be compiled elsewhere, perhaps as a separate article. There is also the inclusion of unique examples of Metafiction which are very interesting, but not appropriate examples of "common devices", because they are either not common, or not notable. Its more of a trivia list. For example, television shows where the character sings the show's theme song- there's a nice collection of examples- but is that really notable? Godel, Escher, Bach is a nice reference because the major theme is self-reference, but it also contains unusual and unique examples that do not illustrate "Common Metafictive Devices."

"Metafiction is primarily associated with Modernist and Postmodernist literature, but is found at least as early as the 9th century One Thousand and One Nights, Cervantes' Don Quixote and Chaucer's 14th century Canterbury Tales." Really I think that list should be enough for written literature, covering the earliest, most influential example and the earliest well known English example. Don Quixote came out in January 1605, maybe that's already too much. Sadly Tristram Shandy(1767) by Laurence Sterne has been left off, but if I added now it would defeat the argument here.

with authors and works such as John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse, Robert Coover's The Babysitter and The Magic Poker, Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five, and William H. Gass's Willie Master's Lonesome Wife. This is apparently part of a literary movement, although its not clear of the exact relationship between the French noveau roman and English novels that follow. There's an argument to be made for inclusion. There's a lot that would be better organized under the media rather than devices used: film/animation/cartoon/television/music Unfortunately it looks like a major rewrite is in order Cuvtixo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree. The list is long and unwieldy. It begs the question, "What isn't metafiction?" Some brave soul needs to wave a pointed stick at all the English Department village explainers here and cut this list down to size. SCFilm29 (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jiggy McCue
Hi guys, I'm very new to Wikipedia editing so please forgive me if I'm breaking any conventions, but I merely wondered if the popular children's story, Jiggy McCue, was worth a mention in this article. Written by Michael Lawrence, all 9 books in the series consist of footnotes at the bottom supposedly written by the story's protagonist, and at times it often references the fact that the protagonist is the narrator and occasionally mentions how the protagonist / narrator is writing down the events described in the book. If any of you know what I'm talking about, do tell me if you think it's worth mentioning. --Futile Crush (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil
This article mentions that "Sam Lowry of Brazil hums/listens to/sings the film's self-titled theme song" but I'm not sure if that's metafictional. The song is not named after the film; rather, the film was named after the song. I don't think that this character's attraction to that song is at all related to any sort of idea of him being a character in a film. 70.61.247.31 (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC) ~Mike R.

Fixed fixed it. your welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.86.132 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Moby Dick
Moby Dick is an early conciously-meta example. It contains discussions of the nature of stories outside the narrative, a natural history of whales shoe-horned into a swipe at the type of books in publication at the time, and chapters that aren't even part of the narrative. Could also be taken to be the author showing off.

It's Garry Shandig's Show
Not only was the show's theme song about being asked to write a theme song for the show, including the line, "How do you like it so far? It's almost halfway finished," but in one episode Garry tunes the TV only to find himself watching his own show, apparently this episode. This is going well beyond just breaking the fourth wall, which went on constantly throughout the show's run. 75.225.109.210 (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to quibble on spelling but you probably mean It's Garry Shandling's Show? I agree from the description (I don't really recall the show myself) that it is quite metafictional. Joshua Davis (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Is this really metafiction. It is about the writing of the guide but in the guide is meant to be non-fictional within the Hitchhiker universe. Even if it is metafiction (I would be the first to admit i am not hugely knowledgeable about this topic, I would say it is not a particularly clear example so should be removed. Schizocarp (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say that HHGTTG is clearly not an example of metafiction. The "Guide" referred to within the pages of the novel is clearly not the novel itself, but rather an encyclopedia which the novel quotes from time to time. Schoolmann (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Would Community fit somewhere in here?
The TV show community makes several runs at the fourth wall, but I'm not sure which of the categories there already is it would fit into.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 23:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Fiction about fiction =/= self-reflection about being fiction
Under History it says:

"...metafiction is specifically fiction about fiction, i.e. fiction which deliberately reflects upon itself"

But isn't it that fiction about fiction doesn't necessarily have to reflect upon itself but otherwise reach the meta-realm?

For instance fiction can construct settings and use plot devices to explore fiction itself. For example I think A Dream of Wessex is such a case.

Please check if that sentence / the article needs to be changed. And if it doesn't need to be changed what about a Category:Fiction about fiction (or sth similar)?

--Fixuture (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

 * Also, how about fictional characters, or – for example – brands, existing solely within fiction? I was brought here by the category Category:Metafictional characters, which includes the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, which did not exist as a commercial mascot in the real world when Ghostbusters was released (although the Stay Puft brand has now been "defictionalised" and packs of marshmallows branded thus can be bought, with the mascot on it, as Ghostbusters merchandise). This is a somewhat different case than Itchy & Scratchy, for example, because it's not a story or show, but an obviously fictional character associated with a commercial brand which is also purely fictional. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Category:Metafictional characters has been nominated for renaming
Category:Metafictional characters has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Metafiction


text:
Name your own price

Name your own price (NYOP) is a pricing strategy under which buyers make a suggestion for a product’s price (unlike the traditional way where sellers quote a certain price) and the transaction occurs only if a seller accepts this quoted price. What happens is that the seller waits for a potential buyer's offer and can then either accept or reject that 'named price' that the user had offered. As the Internet is continuously being developed and online marketplaces are becoming increasingly more popular, consumers have more choices in terms of product pricing. Popularized by the reverse auction pioneer, Priceline.com, such pricing strategy asks consumers to 'name their own price' for various products and services like air tickets, hotels, rental cars, etc. The first bid a consumer places and the subsequent bid increments express the consumer's willingness or unwillingness to haggle. "The economic argument is that the number of bids a consumer submits to win a product in a NYOP auction is determined by the bidder’s intention to trade off higher expected savings from haggling against the associated frictional costs". NYOP retailers do not post a price for their products, and the final price of the transaction is only determined via a "reverse auction process", and these are key features that distinguish hotels and travel intermediaries from NYOP retailers. Similarly, LetYouKnow, Inc. pioneered the application of its own patented matching method within confines of the reverse auction process, whereby consumers name their own price for new vehicles.

Originally, name-your-own-price sales are considered "opaque" by marketers because buyers "don't know the name of the supplier (airline, hotel or car rental company) or the schedule (with air tickets) until after" they make a nonrefundable purchase. Suppliers benefit because they can sell to the most price-conscious buyers/travelers without publicly disclosing those low rates.

Priceline.com
Priceline.com, an online travel agency offered a name your own price option. However, by 2005, Priceline began to de-emphasize this system, and added published price options on its websites.

A 2014 academic study showed that posted prices can guarantee higher profitability to service providers than the name-your-own-price mechanism.

Priceline's price discrimination methods
Priceline.com has two different methods of price discrimination according to the product categories offered. For example, for multi-attributable products that are fairly close substitutes, such as hotel accommodation or air travel, Priceline uses a certain price discrimination method where potential buyers place offers on such products, uncertain about some of the attributes of the product. For instance, customers placing offers for air travel are uncertain about the travel schedule in details and do not know which carriers will place their orders, thus allowing Priceline to screen consumers according to their type, and this in turn allows airlines to serve customers that they were not able to distinguish from less price-sensitive customers before.

Priceline used a different price discrimination method for selling undifferentiated goods. Using this method, Priceline used haggling effort—representing consumer effort and time loss from the online haggling process—as a way of discriminating between different customers. For example, a consumer placing an offer for calling capacity can start with a low offer and then—after waiting for a 60-second time period and then getting rejected—the offer is incremented. Before barring customers from submitting additional offers for 24 hours (except when customers used the Priceline app where customer wait times were further reduced to two hours ) when Priceline used NYOP, Priceline also previously allowed customers to submit three offers consecutively for the same phone number and the same capacity.

Consumer and wholesaler's perspective
Firstly, the consumer is asked to provide certain identification if he/she is an existing user, or to register as a new user. This is followed by the consumer setting an offer for the desired product. Afterwards, the retailer compares the consumer's offered price with an internal threshold price. If the consumer's offer exceeds the threshold, the transaction then occurs at the consumer's named price. If the named price is below the threshold, the NYOP retailer informs the user that his/her offer was too low and then the user is given the opportunity to submit an incremented offer after a certain pre-set delay period (When Priceline had the NYOP feature, it was usually a 24-hour period, unless the customer used the Priceline app, which further reduced the wait time by two hours ), and comparison with the internal threshold price is done again.

NYOP retailer's perspective
The NYOP retailer "acts as an intermediary between the consumer and the wholesaler." The intermediary needs to determine a threshold price above which they are willing to accept the offer from the consumer. As the consumer's offer succeeds, this leads to two sources of profit. The first source is the information rent the intermediary receives, which is the difference between the consumer's submitted offer price and the threshold price. The second source is the difference between the threshold price and the wholesale price, if the NYOP retailer chooses a threshold price that is above the wholesale price. The NYOP retailer also has control over the user interface design. Therefore, the retailer may influence the consumer's haggling effort via the amount of information the consumer has to key in for every offer. In addition, the NYOP retailer is in charge of choosing the time delay between receiving an offer from the consumer and informing him/her about the offer's outcome (whether it is accepted or rejected) and this impacts the consumer's haggling effort directly.

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

title: Name your own price


text:
Marquess of Bristol

Marquess of Bristol is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom held by the Hervey family since 1826. The Marquess's subsidiary titles are Earl of Bristol (created 1714), Earl Jermyn, of Horningsheath in the County of Suffolk (1826), and Baron Hervey, of Ickworth in the County of Suffolk (1703). The Hervey barony is in the Peerage of England, the earldom of Bristol in the Peerage of Great Britain and the Jermyn earldom in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Earl Jermyn is used as courtesy title by the Marquess's eldest son and heir. The Marquess of Bristol also holds the office of Hereditary High Steward of the Liberty of St Edmund (a liberty encompassing the entire former county of West Suffolk). The present holder of these titles is Frederick Hervey (born 19 October 1979), the 8th Marquess and 12th Earl of Bristol.

The Hervey (pronounced "Harvey") family has often been considered unconventional; the 18th-century phrase "When God created the human race, he made men, women and Herveys" is attributed variously to French philosopher Voltaire and to Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. It has been read as a reference to the second Lord Hervey's noted originality and eccentricity, but has been applied to the family throughout the centuries. According to the Dictionary of National Biography, the Hervey family have been described as "active and brave, but reckless and overconfident ... greatly addicted to intrigue ...". Dr Johnson thought them good company: "If you will call a dog Hervey," he said, "I shall love him."

History
The early Herveys were of French origins in particular the Duke of Orleans and a son named Robert Fitz-Hervey who accompanied William the conqueror in the Norman invasion of 1066. Then there was the son of the Bishop of Ely in 1109 who accompanied Richard Lionheart on crusades. Then there was also a sacrist at the Abbey of St. Edmunds in Bury between 1121-36. This family descends from John Hervey (born about 1290) of Bedfordshire. His descendant Thomas Hervey (died 1467) was the first Hervey to live at Ickworth, Suffolk, and was an ancestor of Sir Thomas Hervey of Ickworth, landowner and Member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds from 1679 to 1690. Many other members of the family have represented this constituency in the House of Commons, including Sir Thomas Hervey’s son John Hervey. On 27 March 1702/3, he was raised to the Peerage of England as Baron Hervey, of Ickworth in the County of Suffolk, and on 19 October 1714, he was further honoured when he was made Earl of Bristol in the Peerage of Great Britain. The 1st Earl of Bristol died in 1751. His two eldest sons (Carr and John) having died before him, he was succeeded in turn by three of his grandsons – all brothers and sons of the 1st Earl's second son John.

The 2nd Earl held political office as Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland and Lord Privy Seal and died unmarried. He was succeeded as 3rd Earl by his younger brother, who was a vice-admiral in the Royal Navy and also served as Chief Secretary for Ireland from 1766 to 1767. He also died without legitimate issue and was succeeded in December 1779 by the next younger brother, who thereby became the 4th Earl. Known as the "Earl-Bishop", the fourth Earl served as Church of Ireland Lord Bishop of Cloyne from 1767 to 1768 and as Lord Bishop of Derry from 1768 to 1803. Although an efficient clergyman, varying estimates have been found of his character. He had a reputation for high living, and hostelries in various countries took to calling themselves the ‘Hotel Bristol’, implying that they were the best in town. The custom continues today. In 1795, he began expanding his ancestral home, thus creating Ickworth House in its modern form. The house was still unfinished when he died in 1803 and was completed by his successor. In 1799, he became the fifth Baron Howard de Walden when the abeyance of this peerage was terminated. Bishop Lord Bristol married Elizabeth, sister and heir of Sir Charles Davers, 5th Baronet (c. 1730–1763), and great-granddaughter of Thomas Jermyn, 2nd Baron Jermyn (see Baron Jermyn). His second son, John Augustus Hervey, Lord Hervey, was a captain in the Royal Navy and also served as ambassador to Florence. He predeceased his father. His daughter, the Hon. Elizabeth Catherine Caroline Hervey (1780–1803), married Charles Ellis, later first Baron Seaford. Their son Charles succeeded as sixth Baron Howard of Walden on the death of his great-grandfather, Lord Bristol, in 1803 (see Baron Howard de Walden and Baron Seaford). Upon the 4th Earl's death, the Bristol title passed to his third but eldest surviving son Frederick, who thereby became the 5th Earl. He was a politician and served under Henry Addington as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from 1801 to 1803.

In 1826 the 5th Earl was created Marquess of Bristol and Earl Jermyn, of Horningsheath in the County of Suffolk, both in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. On his death in 1859 the titles passed to his eldest son Frederick (1800–1864). The 2nd Marquess was a Tory politician and was Treasurer of the Household under Sir Robert Peel from 1841 to 1846. When he died, the marquessate passed to his eldest son, also named Frederick. Before succeeding as 3rd Marquess, he had represented the traditional family seat in parliament and also served as Lord-Lieutenant of Suffolk. The 3rd Marquess died without male issue and was succeeded in turn by two of his nephews, the sons of Lord Augustus Hervey, second son of the 2nd Marquess. The 4th Marquess was a rear-admiral in the Royal Navy and also sat, as his uncle had done, as Conservative Member of Parliament for Bury St Edmunds. He had no sons and was succeeded in the Hervey titles and estates by his younger brother. The 5th Marquess was Minister and Consul-General to Colombia from 1919 to 1923, and Minister to Peru and Ecuador from 1923 to 1929. His only son, the 6th Marquess, was chancellor of the Monarchist League. He moved to Monte Carlo in early 1979 as tax exile, where he died on 10 March 1985.

The 6th Marquess of Bristol married three times. His son from his first marriage succeeded as 7th Marquess. A flamboyant character, he died childless at the age of 44 in January 1999. The 6th Marquess's only son from his second marriage, Lord Nicholas Hervey, died at the age of 36 in 1998. From his third marriage, the 6th Marquess had three children: Frederick Hervey, 8th Marquess of Bristol, Lady Victoria Hervey and Lady Isabella Hervey.

Other family members
A significant number of other members of the family have also gained distinction. Sir Nicholas Hervey (d. 1532), brother of John Hervey, great-great-great-grandfather of the first Earl, was Ambassador from Henry VIII to the Holy Roman Emperor and took part in the famous jousts at the Field of the Cloth of Gold in 1520. His grandson William Hervey was created Baron Hervey in 1620. The Hon. Thomas Hervey, second son from the second marriage of the first Earl, held the family seat in parliament. The Hon. William Hervey, third son from the second marriage of the first Earl, was a captain in the Royal Navy. The Hon. Felton Hervey, sixth son from the second marriage of the first Earl, represented the family seat in Parliament and was the grandfather of Felton Hervey-Bathurst, who was created a baronet in 1818 (see Hervey-Bathurst baronets).

Sir George William Hervey (1845–1915), Comptroller-General and Secretary of the National Debt from 1894 to 1910, was the son of Lord William Hervey (1805–1850), third son of the first Marquess. The Right Reverend Lord Arthur Hervey, fourth son of the first Marquess, was Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells between 1869 and 1894. Lord Alfred Hervey, sixth son of the first Marquess, was a Conservative politician. His eldest son, The Very Reverend Frederick Alfred John Canon Hervey (1846–1910), was Chaplain-in-Ordinary to Queen Victoria from 1886 to 1901, and Domestic Chaplain to King Edward VII from 1878 to 1910. Lord Augustus Hervey, second son of the second Marquess, sat as Member of Parliament for the Western Division of Suffolk. Lord Francis Hervey, fourth son of the second Marquess, represented the most often held local seat in Parliament and served as First Civil Service Commissioner from 1907 to 1909.

Baron Hervey (1703)

 * John Hervey, 1st Baron Hervey (1665–1751) (created Earl of Bristol in 1714)
 * John Hervey, 2nd Baron Hervey (1696–1743), sat in the House of Lords during his father's lifetime by writ of acceleration

Earl of Bristol (1714)

 * John Hervey, 1st Earl of Bristol, 1st Baron Hervey (1665–1751)
 * Carr Hervey, Lord Hervey (1691–1723) (courtesy title)
 * John Hervey, 2nd Baron Hervey (1696–1743) (courtesy title until 1733, then sitting in House of Lords)
 * George William Hervey, 2nd Earl of Bristol, (de jure) 2nd Baron Hervey (1721–1775)
 * Augustus John Hervey, 3rd Earl of Bristol, 3rd Baron Hervey (1724–1779)
 * Frederick Augustus Hervey, 4th Earl of Bristol, 4th Baron Hervey, 5th Baron Howard de Walden (1730–1803)
 * George Hervey (1755 – c. 1764)
 * John Augustus Hervey, Lord Hervey (1757–1796) (courtesy title)
 * Frederick William Hervey, 5th Earl of Bristol, 5th Baron Hervey (1769–1859) (created Marquess of Bristol in 1826)

The Howard de Walden barony did not pass to the next earl. It instead passed through male-preference primogeniture to the 4th Earl's great-grandson Charles Ellis, son of the 4th Earl's granddaughter Elizabeth Hervey, Baroness Seaford.

Marquess of Bristol (1826)

 * Frederick William Hervey, 1st Marquess of Bristol, 5th Earl of Bristol, 5th Baron Hervey (1769–1859)
 * Frederick William Hervey, 2nd Marquess of Bristol, 6th Earl of Bristol, 6th Baron Hervey (1800–1864)
 * Frederick William John Hervey, 3rd Marquess of Bristol, 7th Earl of Bristol, 7th Baron Hervey (1834–1907)
 * Frederick William Fane Hervey, 4th Marquess of Bristol, 8th Earl of Bristol, 8th Baron Hervey (1863–1951)
 * Herbert Arthur Robert Hervey, 5th Marquess of Bristol, 9th Earl of Bristol, 9th Baron Hervey (1870–1960)
 * Victor Frederick Cochrane Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol, 10th Earl of Bristol, 10th Baron Hervey (1915–1985)
 * Frederick William John Augustus Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol, 11th Earl of Bristol, 11th Baron Hervey (1954–1999)
 * Frederick William Augustus Hervey, 8th Marquess of Bristol, 12th Earl of Bristol, 12th Baron Hervey (born 1979)

The heir apparent is the 8th Marquess' son, Frederick William Herbert Morley Hervey, Earl Jermyn (born 2022).

Line of succession

 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Frederick William Hervey, 1st Marquess of Bristol (1769–1859)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Frederick William Hervey, 2nd Marquess of Bristol (1800–1864)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Frederick William John Hervey, 3rd Marquess of Bristol (1834–1907)
 * Lord Augustus Henry Charles Hervey (1837–1875)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Frederick William Fane Hervey, 4th Marquess of Bristol (1863–1951)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Herbert Arthur Robert Hervey, 5th Marquess of Bristol (1870–1960)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Victor Frederick Cochrane Hervey, 6th Marquess of Bristol (1915–1985)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] (Frederick William) John Augustus Hervey, 7th Marquess of Bristol (1954–1999)
 * [[Image:Coronet of a British Marquess.svg|25px]] Frederick William Augustus Hervey, 8th Marquess of Bristol (born 1979)
 * (1) Frederick William Herbert Morley Hervey, Earl Jermyn (b. 2022)
 * Lord William Hervey (1805–1850)
 * Francis Arthur Hervey (1849–1905)
 * Alec Francis Hervey (1885–1949)
 * Ronald Frederick William Hervey (1919–1997)
 * (2) Timothy Hugh Hervey (b. 1960)
 * (3) Benjamin James William Peacham Hervey (b. 1997)
 * Rt. Rev. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey (1808–1894)
 * George Henry William Hervey (1843–1933)
 * Gerald Arthur Hervey (1881–1917)
 * Anthony Gerald Hervey (1915–2000)
 * (4) Gerald Edward Hervey (b. 1949)
 * (5) Simon Anthony Hervey (b. 1985)
 * (6) Peter David Edward Hervey (b. 2018)
 * (7) Christopher Symes Hervey (b. 1952)
 * (8) Toby James Symes Hervey (b. 1987)

Family seat
The Herveys lived at Ickworth House and Park in Ickworth, Suffolk, from the mid 15th century to 1998. The present-day facade of the house was built by the end of the 18th century under the 4th Earl of Bristol. The traditional burial place of the Hervey family is Ickworth Church, surrounded by the estate. The line of Herveys buried in the vault under the church and in the churchyard begins with Thomas Hervey (d. 1467, who was the first of this family to own Ickworth) and includes every Earl and Marquess of Bristol, as well as many of their daughters and wives. In 1956, on the death of the 4th Marquess (d. 1951), his widow gave the house and grounds to the National Trust in abatement of death duties on cash and personal effects as absolute owners since the as a precondition imposed by the death duties regime (see inheritance tax), tempered by the discretion of the National Trust in granting limited leasebacks on strict terms to ancestral owners. The family, through whoever is Marquess of Bristol, was given a 99-year lease to occupy the East Wing of Ickworth, upon paying yearly expenses and below market rent.

In 1998, the 7th Marquess surrendered the remaining term of the lease to the National Trust, partly for funds and partly to ward off threatened forfeiture based on his behaviour as tenant. He died in 1999 with minimal remaining assets. His heir, the Frederick Hervey, 8th Marquess of Bristol, spoke in 2001 of his anger at not being granted a new lease as it went against the original Letter of Wishes when the house was handed over to the National Trust. The National Trust converted the East Wing into a hotel. In 2009 Sir Simon Jenkins, the National Trust's new chairman, stated, "I think it is in our interest for the Marquesses of Bristol to be living there."

title: Marquess of Bristol


text:
Talk:General Sherman (tree)

When named for Sherman?
The citations provided do not provide evidence that the tree was named for Sherman in 1879. Can someone actually produce a citation? When Gifford Pinchot visited the tree in 1891 he documents that the colonists there called it the Karl Marx Tree (see Breaking New Ground pg 44). The historian William Tweed writes, "I have never found anything from the period 1879-1885 that uses the ‘General Sherman’ name…" http://www.48hills.org/2014/08/27/karl-marx-tree-southern-pacific-railroad-killed-socialist-colony-name-creating-yosemite-national-park/ This is very suspicious since a specific date is provided. It appears that the tree was renamed so that it wouldn't share a name with the father of Communism and the story of Wolverton concocted. For the encyclopedia I either suggest removing the unsourced suggestion that the tree was named in 1879 by Wolverton, or indicating that the tree was previously known by a different name and that it is uncertain when it was named for Grant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 20:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Just in the last few years, a couple Tulare County locals have researched the story about the tree being named for Sherman by James Wolverton, in 1879. The oldest version of the story, that's been found, is from 1914. James Wolverton appears to have never existed. C sloth (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Pinchot: "The colonists had named the biggest Sequoia for Karl Marx. Today that might entitle them to be called Bolsheviks. Under whatever name, they were very kind to one stranger I could mention. "Forty-six years later I saw that tree again. This second time I traveled to it not on makeshift snowshoes improvised out of barrel staves but by automobile. The vast Sequoia itself had shared the change. It was no longer Socialist, but had taken the name of a great soldier and citizen, General Sherman." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.150.26 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The story of James Wolverton naming the Gen. Sherman Tree is probably untrue
From the article: "The General Sherman was named after the American Civil War general William Tecumseh Sherman, in 1879 by naturalist James Wolverton, who had served as a lieutenant in the 9th Indiana Cavalry under Sherman.". The story of James Wolverton and his naming of the General Sherman tree is from a 1914 in newspaper articles promoting Sequoia and General Grant National Parks; this is the earliest reference that has been found to this story. Recently, local historians have shown that the story seems to be a complete fabrication. In fact the person of James Wolverton appears to have never existed, or at best he is loosely based on someone named Joel Rivers Woolverton. But: There are no records of Joel Wolverton being in this part of California before 1890. Joel never served under Gen. Sherman. He was stationed in Nevada during the Civil War. There is no evidence that he went by the name of "James". And there doesn't appear to be a valid reason to consider him a "naturalist". C sloth (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Added "possibly apocryphal". Schazjmd   (talk)  17:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Untitled
I've moved some material that's actually about the Grant tree (which someone can write an article about if they like)Vicki Rosenzweig 01:44, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC):

Darn. I always mix these two trees up!!! My bad, thanks for catching it. I'll make a link to General Grant from giant sequoia.

 * Took out material from here, moved to General Grant tree. -- hike395 01:49, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

You know, from those pictures, I don't think it's even the largest tree in that forest, let alone on earth.. I wish we had some pictures with a better sense of scale.

---

This was removed from the article by an IP-editor:

 * It is named after General William Tecumseh Sherman, American Civil War leader. Many persons of born in the Southern United States object to monuments named after General Sherman because of the destructiveness of Sherman's March to the Sea. There is a movement to rename this tree.

Is there really a movement to rename the tree? Should this be mentioned in the article? I know nothing about this. - Haukur 14:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * That paragraph was also inserted by an anon editor --- I couldn't find any material either supporting the paragraph, so I was OK with it being deleted. If someone could verify the claim, we can undelete. -- hike395 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, good call. There very well might be such a campaign but if there is it doesn't appear to have any Internet presence. Until someone presents a verifiable source the right thing to do is to keep it out. - Haukur 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Not the tallest tree
How is this the tallest tree? There are loads of trees over a 100 m. See Stratosphere Giant and the links from it. Piet 13:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, largest in mass. You could clarify that. I don't really believe they have measured enough trees to be sure, but well... Piet 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 * From what I've read, there have been quite a few trees now which have been climbed and measured by climbers, wrapping tapes around the trunks at intervals. Including General Sherman, a bunch of other Giant Sequioas, and many largest and tallest Coastal Redwoods. The results are not plastered all over the internet, but there are a decent number of references and web pages about it.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The tallest tree is apparently another Redwood, Hyperion. An attempt to reference this in the article has been reverted. Lidz 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the tallest tree Part 2
After reading the last headline's comments about General Sherman not being one of the tallest trees, I'm going to deleted or modify that sentence in the article. I also agree is is not one of the tallest, and feedback so far, leans that way.

In fact, General Sherman is almost 100 feet shorter than several of the tallest coastal redwoods. And it's even shorter than many of the largest coastal redwoods. For example, the Lost Monarch and Del Norte Titan on this redwood link, are both taller, with Del Norte Titan being 30 feet taller than General Sherman. See also Sequoia sempervirens for coastal redwood measurements.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation for Statistics
Tonight, I tried to find references for the statistics. Does anybody know of a good website, or book, which documents the statistics for the various diameters listed? I'm not disputing the stats. It just would be good to list a source if possible. Thanks.ThreeWikiteers (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This website http://www.safnet.org/aboutforestry/funfacts.cfm confirms the diameter and girth of the tree. A photo i found (which i put a link on this site for in the past) of the general sherman sign taken sometime in 2008 saying it's girth was 109 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that the ref tag has been applied to 'circumference at base', and is listed at 109 ft. Based on the diameter at base given immediately below in the table and the identity circum=pi*diameter, I believe the figure should be 114.67 feet, and no citation should be needed. However, I am unsure whether 'base' and 'ground' are used to mean two separate things in this context. Rritterson (talk) 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You have just * the maximum diameter by pie, which wouldnt give you anywhere near the real value. As you are assuming it is the maximum diameter all the way round, a perfect cylinder. Their are three types of girth measurment, at ground where it's simply putting a tape round the base if it be on a slant or flat it doesnt matter, this will give the largest value and this is what the 109feet value for general sherman is. The next is the girth at high point of ground which measures a girth of the tree at the horizonal plane of the highest point of ground. The last is the girth at breast height which measures the girth at 4.5 feet above the highest point of ground. I hope that helps.

"Tallest" not the same as "largest"
(...or "widest," or "most number of rings," or "prettiest," or "most kitchen cabinets made from one tree"). People, please be careful when editing this article. There's a 2008 version of Guinness Book of World Records that's entirely searchable at Google books -- it's a piece of cake to look up anything you like, including the world's tallest tree, which is, in fact, the the Hyperion. (The "largest" is evidently not included in those records, but according to various other reliable sources [including the United States government -- see the ref. I added at nps.org] this tree is, in fact, the largest [although, sadly, that fact is not noted at the WP article for Hyperion. Go, WP!]). But not the tallest! This is just a reminder to keep the two straight. I've made edits reflecting that, but I'm sure someone will get his/her bloomers in a tangle (again) at some point, so I'm adding this note to mitigate future confusion. Love, SB Sugarbat (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Biggest tree should not redirect here
This is not the biggest tree - it is the tallest tree- and bigest tree should redirect to a list of trees.187.195.3.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC).
 * Uh yeah no... Famartin (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hahahahah....

 * To whoever posted this heading, the redirect comment may have been incorrect when posted back in 2011. But apparently a "cat" may be wigging out of a bag through the site of an expert arborist. Several people have haggled over M. D. Vaden's professional site as a resource, but if his opinion get's published, there's a good chance Gen. Sherman may go on the record as a double-trunk tree instead of a single trunk that people have touted for years. Vaden published a somewhat detailed explanation about trees, tissue and formation, noting how Sherman is a twin tree. In which case, the biggest tree page would need to redirect somewhere else. But would that be a new coast redwood discovery like Grogan's Fault, or would it be another giant sequoia like the President, Grant, etc.? The revelation emerged from the following source >> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Round off error?
There's a discrepancy between the introductory paragraph and the table.

In the introductory paragraph, the volume is given as 1487 cubic meters (52,513 cu ft). 1487.0000 cubic meters = 52,512.9094 cubic feet. In the table, it's given as 1487 cubic meters (52,508 cu ft). 52,508.0000 cubic feet = 1486.8610 cubic meters.

I suspect the original calculation was made in feet, and the 1487 cubic meters is rounded off from the 52508 cu ft figure, but I'm not sure. (This would make the table right and the introductory paragraph wrong.) Does anybody know for sure? Was the original calculation made in feet?

JohnGHissong (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

More History Needed
How did this tree survive so long without being cut down? How was the area this tree was in get preserved if its great size was not realized until 1931? This article could use some historical research. Ryoung 122 02:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Access to the Giant Forest area (Where the Sherman Tree is located) was quite difficult before 1890. e.g. Prior to that time, there was really no practical way to get horse drawn wagons into that area. The Kaweah Colonists finished their logging road around 1890, which went most of the way from the foothills to Giant Forest. In 1890, a bill was signed by the President making the the Giant Forest area a National Park (Sequoia National Park), thus protecting the Sherman Tree. There has been some speculation that the Southern Pacific Railroad was behind the creation of Sequoia National Park, because they didn't want the Kaweah Colonists logging the Giant Forest area and potentially driving down the price of lumber in the San Joaquin Valley .C sloth (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2018 (UTC) C_sloth

Suggest removing picture of tree with child
This picture is included in the page right now: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/General_Sherman_2426497682.jpg

Coming this close to the tree can only be done by jumping a fence, as you can see here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/General_Sherman_Tree_2013.jpg

Approaching the tree beyond the fence is prohibited because it can damage the tree's surprisingly shallow root structure. I suggest considering removing the picture since there are others out there that can show the tree's impressive scale without rewarding an act that's actually harmful to the thing this article is about.

Hopefully the established editors of this page can give this some thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.226.156.195 (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Strongly disagree. This is NOT a parks and wildlife document, and it is not the place to preach conservation.  Whoever took that photo did so illegally, but removing the photo after the fact accomplishes nothing.  Your statement below the caption of the photo will also be removed.  There is no proof whatsoever that a child standing under that tree has or would damage its roots.  I repeat: no proof whatsoever.  That is non-neutral, unsubstantiated opinion, not based in fact and it needs to be removed from the caption. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

 * To remove or not remove is questionable. The person may not have violated any law or rule. If snow blocked information signs or they jumped a fence, or a fence was missing, the photo could be "moral" from two points of view. Unless stated otherwise, it's possible an image can be taken with special permission, which may be unknown. So the image, whether or not it's like, did occur, and seems okay for an example of size and scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Photo Caption
"... Note that such behavior is discouraged due to the tree's shallow root system". Really? Did that need to be in the caption? That statement needs to be removed. It has nothing to do with the topic. This is not a parks and wildlife pamphlet. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

September 2021 - fact check?
I just came home from a visit to Sequoia NP (I got out just as they were closing the NP because of the fire(s)). An employee (food service, not NPS) told me that a tree, location in the Parks but secret, has recently been found and measures larger (I assume in volume, using their silly (but standard) measure) than General S. I was unable, after a very quick and sloppy search, to verify this. The table in the wiki.article is from 2009 - it needs an update anyway. Could someone check and update the dates? Thx!174.131.63.209 (talk) 18:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:General Sherman (tree)


text:
Vodafone Romania

Vodafone Romania S.A. is a Romanian telecommunications operator owned by Vodafone Group. It launched in April 1997 as the first GSM network in Romania.

Before acquisition by Vodafone Group, it was known as Connex, after which it was rebranded Connex-Vodafone and in April 2006, the Connex name was dropped, the operator being simply known as Vodafone Romania, aligning itself with the global Vodafone brand.

Vodafone Romania is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vodafone Group, and is the seventh-largest Vodafone subsidiary in the world by number of subscribers. Vodafone became the majority stakeholder after it brought 79% of Mobifon's shares from Canadian company Telesystems International Wireless, which had been the previous majority shareholder. Furthermore, it recently acquired 5% of Mobifon's shares from Canadian Entrepreneur Elani Grobler.

The operator is the main competitor of Orange for the 22.8 million active mobile telephony users in Romania. Connex, the ancestor of Vodafone Romania, held the largest number of subscribers, except the year 2000, until September 2004, when Orange edged ahead.

The motto of Vodafone is Trăiește fiecare clipă (rendered in English by the company as Make the most of now, a more accurate translation would be "Live every moment"). Previous mottos were: Tu faci viitorul (You create the future) and Viitorul sună bine (The future sounds good).

Brands of Vodafone
Vodafone Romania (and Connex before it) used numerous others brands. They include:

 * Xnet – an internet service provider, offering free unlimited dial-up for Connex mobile phone subscribers between 2000 and 2003. The brand is no longer used.
 * myX – Romania's first mobile portal. Also used by the company for a short-lived venture in the fashion industry. The portal has been relabeled as Vodafone Live.
 * myBanking – Mobile Banking service
 * myDomain – domain name service
 * homemade.ro – video sharing website

History

 * 1998: SMS services introduced
 * 1999: Xnet Internet service introduced; High Speed Circuit Switched Data (HSCSD) technology introduced; mobile phones running on Connex donated to ambulance service of Oradea (first Romanian company to do so)
 * 2000: WAP mobile Internet services launched
 * 2001: myX, Romania's first mobile portal launched; SMS services such as dating, ringtones and logos are introduced; GPRS service launched
 * 2002: GPRS prepaid introduced; first company in Europe to introduce World Wide Number (WWN) facilities; mobile banking introduced in cooperation with Banca Comerciala Romana (BCR).
 * 2003: myBanking introduced – a service in collaboration with Raiffeisen Bank, for customers to pay Connex bills and do banking automatically
 * 2003: Connex Meeting Call introduced.
 * 2005: 3G services based on W-CDMA introduced, giving way to video telephony and broadband internet via mobile phone.
 * 2005: In partnership with RIM, Connex launches the second BlackBerry service in Romania.
 * 2005: Liliana Solomon is named CEO of Connex.
 * 1 November 2005: The name of the operator is changed to Connex-Vodafone.
 * 27 April 2006: The name of the operator is changed to Vodafone Romania.
 * 2018: Vodafone acquires Liberty Global's Romanian operations, UPC Romania.

Radio frequency summary
The following is a list of known frequencies which Vodafone employs in Romania:

title: Vodafone Romania


text:
Talk:Sketch of the Analytical Engine

What is this? A book an article, what? Is there going to be discussion, or are you just listing a title here? RickK 01:46, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sketch of the Analytical Engine


text:
User talk:Algis

Welcome to wikipedia! Please experiment at the Sandbox or use the preview button when making an edit.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 01:48, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

Please stop playing around with the List of themed timelines article. You are clogging up the edit history. --Jiang

Please quit changing useful links to unuseful versions. RickK 01:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Algis


text:
General Grant (tree)

The General Grant tree is the largest giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) in the General Grant Grove section of Kings Canyon National Park in California, and the second largest giant sequoia tree in the world after the General Sherman tree. Once thought to be well over 2,000 years old, recent estimates suggest the General Grant tree is closer to 1,650 years old. The tree also features the third largest footprint of any living giant sequoia, measuring 107.6 ft in circumference at ground level.

History
The tree was named in 1867 after Ulysses S. Grant, Union Army general and the 18th President of the United States (1869–1877). President Calvin Coolidge proclaimed it the "Nation's Christmas Tree" on April 28, 1926. Due in large part to its huge base, the General Grant tree was thought to be the largest tree in the world prior to 1931, when the first precise measurements indicated that the General Sherman was slightly larger. On March 29, 1956, President Dwight D. Eisenhower declared the tree a "National Shrine", a memorial to those who died in war. It is the only living object to be so declared.

In September 2003, General Grant moved up one place in the giant sequoia size rankings when the Washington tree lost its crown and the hollow upper half of its trunk after a fire caused by a lightning strike.

title: General Grant (tree)


text:
User talk:Csurguine

Proposed deletion of Anti-Phishing Act of 2005

The article Anti-Phishing Act of 2005 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Not notable. Legislation did not pass the 109th Congress, which ended January 3, 2007."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

I have proposed "Anti-Phishing Act of 2005" for deletion. It was a minor piece of legislation that did not pass almost 15 years ago.

Rklahn (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include: Have fun! --Jiang 01:50, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * Welcome, newcomers
 * Manual of style
 * Naming conventions

Please bold titles and avoid putting external links in the text of the article. --Jiang
 * The style guide is also handy. Thanks for the disintermediation article! - Hephaestos 05:32, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For redirects, use a #REDIRECT article-name :) Dysprosia 05:56, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Csurguine