text:
Talk:Conspiracy theory

A part does not equal the whole
The lead sentence of this article is factually wrong and has NPOV issues, specifically the clause stating "when other explanations are more probable." Conspiracy theories where other explanations being more probable are a subset of the broader category of theories about conspiracies, some of which are the most probable explanation; to label all conspiracy theories as having more probable other explanations when this is only true for some is the fallacy of composition.

That sentence as it is written, describes conspiracy theories with a pejorative connotation, which by definition, cannot be a neutral point of view. The factually incorrect assertion is attributed to cherry-picked sources on which undue weight is placed, when sources that do not describe conspiracy theories in a pejorative manner could be used instead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

 * The second sentence does a nice job of clarifying that the term may be understood by some to have a negative connotation, rather than stating so in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose modifying the first two sentences to read:
 * A conspiracy theory is an explanation for an event or situation that asserts the existence of a conspiracy by powerful and sinister groups, often political in motivation. The term generally has a negative connotation, implying that the appeal of a conspiracy theory is based in prejudice, emotional conviction, or insufficient evidence, and that other explanations are more probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like you're working from a false premise here. This is a particular term with a particular definition, which is well supported by the cited sources.
 * When there is a theory out there about a conspiracy that is probably true, that's not what this article is about, it is a different beast altogether. We do not need to contort the lead of this article to try to cover that situation.
 * Describing conspiracy theories as likely to be false is not a neutrality problem any more than saying the same about delusions. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delusions, unlike conspiracy theories, are by definition false.
 * The same is not true of conspiracy theories, which are "a belief that some secret but influential organization is responsible for an event or phenomenon" -- the definition does not exclude such beliefs that are true.
 * A conspiracy theory is a specific type of theory (a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained) and theories can be true or false -- unless you also wish to change the lede of theory to read "A theory is a false type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking."
 * Of course I'm aware that most people connotatively view conspiracy theories as likely to be untrue. But such is a subjective opinion, and when subjective statements can be sourced to reliable sources, they ought to be qualified, and not stated in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The cited sources do not chop the definition in half as you are doing here. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I trying to grasp at what you position is. My claims are:
 * (1) The definition of conspiracy theory, which is cited in the origin and usage section, makes no mention of veracity, as does the one i cited above.
 * (2) This notion of "conspiracy theories are false" is a cultural conception, not a fact, and it should be qualified as such.
 * (3) Sources which express opinions, no matter how reliable they are, should be qualified as such.
 * To which of the above do you disagree? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * All of the above, though (3) is technically correct and simply irrelevant here. To quote the article: when other explanations are more probable that is part of the definition. This is not a problem, just as it is not a problem that delusions are false by definition as you correctly stated. MrOllie (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if you disagree with points (1) and (2), then you ought to revise this article's origin and usage section, which states exactly what I am saying as points 1 and 2. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even assuming you are right: That is not how Wikipedia works. Editors should not remove sourced text just because they disagree with it. We have a lot of work reverting the edits of people who do exactly that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm simply saying that MrOllie is wrong to say that points (1) and (2) are invalid because they are backed by reliable sources that are IN THIS ARTICLE ALREADY. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Language changes over time. Sources about how the term was used in 1863 or urban legends about the CIA don't have anything to do with how academic sources define it today. MrOllie (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're strawmanning and not giving me a fair shake here.
 * OED is a contemporary source. The contemporary research cited in that section Conspiracy_theory also state as such and says that it use used commonly in a derogatory way but is not per se implausible. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The OED does not overrule other sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.
 * Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think the OED definition is fringe and can't be given undue weight, it shouldn't be included in the origin and usage or the lead. The origin and usage section doesn't get a special exception for the logic that you are applying to the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No one has said that, but have fun attacking that Straw man. MrOllie (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you said that. I think you don't think that. I'm arguing that OED definition should also be in the lead. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And you are making the fallacy fallacy by not addressing the substance of "The journal articles cited in the lead in no way overrule the OED or journal articles I just cited above.
 * Because reliable source disagree, we should qualify claims and not state them in wikivoice." Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When a source is silent on a factual claim (as is the OED), that cannot be construed as disagreement. MrOllie (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When a source's definition of conspiracy theory omits the condition that thing must be false/implausible/unlikely to be considered a conspiracy theory, that source necessarily makes the claim that a thing can be a conspiracy theory irrespective of whether or not it is false/implausible/unlikely. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If I say dog means "a canine which is named Fido" and you show me multiple sources that define dog without mention of "Fido", it does not mean that your sources are neutral as to whether or not being named Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog; it means that they do not think Fido is a necessary condition to be considered a dog. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're making assumptions there which aren't reflected in the sources. If a source doesn't mention a thing that counts for precisely nothing, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. MrOllie (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories which are more likely true than false fall under OED's definition; yes or no? Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The premise of the question is flawed, so I cannot answer. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What controversial assumption is contained in the question? Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It assumes that there are conspiracy theories that are more likely to be true than false, for one thing. MrOllie (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Would theories about conspiracies which fail the "other explanations are more probable" condition -- like for example, the theory that British aristocrats conspired with the Confederates -- be considered "conspiracy theories" under OED's definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is fruitful to try to apply modern definitions to usage from 1863. MrOllie (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why can't you answer a simple question?
 * Theorized conspiracies which are not implausible exist in any time period. The question is whether they are considered conspiracy theories.
 * Under the OED definition, they clearly are, which you clearly don't want to admit.
 * The OED definition should also be included in the lead to not give undue weight to sources which state conspiracy theories are unlikely to be true by definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not answering your questions because they are not germane to the matter at hand, which must be based on Wikipedia's policies, and not our personal impressions of what definitions should be. And as I mentioned earlier, when the OED is silent on a point that cannot be construed to mean that it disagrees with the other sources. MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is am absurd conclusion, and you are refusing to engage with my contentions in good faith. It is not unreasonable for me to make the adverse inference that you refuse to answer my questions because an answer would prove that I am right. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * MrOllie is right to refuse. This is not the place for such discussions. Read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:OR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the case of a definition, yes it is! Peter L Griffin (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How is it making an assumption to say that theories about conspiracies, regardless of plausibility, fall under OED's definition because OED's definition places no weight on plausibility? Peter L Griffin (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I sense a pattern here, whether intended or not, quite similar to Argument Clinic. Luckily Wikipedia content is decided by a WP:CONSENSUS of experienced editors using policy-based rationale rather than a process of wearing down of opponents in endless circular debates. At this point, Peter L Griffin's proposal for making fundamental changes to the article topic is best retired, or if he wishes, submitted at a venue such as WP:NPOVN or WP:FTN where wider opinion is available. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

 * @Peter L Griffin, the encyclopedia summarizes what WP:RS say about a given topic. You may disagree with what cited sources say, but it doesn't change editorial policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At best, a conspiracy theory might be "unproven" for a short time, but even that situation is rare, because it normally has several parts, and it is rare for all of them to be factual. (It only takes one faulty brick to bring down the whole structure, and conspiracy theorists tend to be contrarians who are at war with many (not just one) aspects of what society considers facts.) Usually, some of the aspects of a theory are already proven false and/or they question and ignore proven facts, hence the theory is already false from the beginning. It is created to support some weird and false idea held by its creator. A theory that is proven true is no longer a conspiracy theory but a fact.
 * As far as our practice here goes, articles for false conspiracy theories often include the words "conspiracy theory" in the title. If the theory is proven true, we retitle the article and remove those words. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 00:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's overly generous to say that "other explanations are more probable" and some of the sources for this statement are stronger, for example calling them false beliefs. TFD (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And some other of the sources do not make a claim as to whether or not they are false.
 * If reliable sources disagree on a factual claim, should that claim be included unqualified? Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is necessary. Peter L Griffin (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

When is a Conspiracy theory not a Conspiracy theory?

When its a Conspiracy.

We have an article on real ones, this is about the false ones. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Your thinking is far too binary; something not having been proven true does not mean it is false. The true-false dichotomy exists theoretically, but only when all the facts are readily available. Sometimes things cannot (or have not at this time) been proven to be definitely true or false, and the lack it being proven true does not mean that one can confidently assert in wikivoice that it is false.
 * A conspiracy theory is a theorized conspiracy which has not been proven true. It has not necessarily been proven false, and may be proven true some time in the future.
 * Conspiracy theory which is proven true -> Conspiracy
 * Conspiracy theory which is proven false -> Conspiracy theory
 * Conspiracy theory which has not been proven true or false -> Conspiracy theory
 * An example of the last category would be the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election.
 * A conspiracy theory? You bet. Is it false? We don't know yet.
 * Should it be summarily labeled as "unlikely to be true" because of the existence of other unrelated conspiracy theories which are false? Certainly not. Peter L Griffin (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theory (legal term) has its own article. This is not it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose you are correct that the example I have given also has a legal component.
 * Here is another:
 * In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.
 * A conspiracy theory about the JFK assassination, which comes from a government body. I think it would be unfair to call it unlikely to be true. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This logic is based on some assumption like "US politicians cannot get anything wrong", which is not one of the Wikipedia rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources say that this "conspiracy theory" is unlikley to be true? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And are there enough that this can be stated in an unqualified wikivoice? Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please read WP:INDENT? You keep adding colons in a way that makes it look as if you are responding to yourself and refuting your own points. It's confusing and wastes the time of readers. I corrected it in this instance, but it makes the discussion a few lines above even more tedious than it would be without that.
 * What reliable sources say I am not interested in fetching the sticks you throw. This is the talk page of Conspiracy theory, not that of John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, and because of WP:OR, you are not allowed to draw your own conclusions and put them into the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, is this in this article, what conspiracy theories do we include do you object to including? Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See my above comment. In 1979, the United States House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) agreed with the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, but concluded that the commission's report and the original FBI investigation were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Another also mentioned in this article which I dispute calling unlikley to be true is:
 * The earliest known usage was by the American author Charles Astor Bristed, in a letter to the editor published in The New York Times on January 11, 1863. He used it to refer to claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're crazy uncle JimBob putting on a tinfoil hat and saying Joe Biden is an alien without any evidence is one type of conspiracy theory. It's also what most people think of when they hear the term "conspiracy theory." This is because, as is described in the origin and usage section, while the actual definition of the word is agnostic to whether or not the theory is plausible, and the word was not initially derogatory, the word is now understood in popular society to connotatively to be derogatory, though not by definition.
 * What I have mentioned above —- the New York Times' theory that the British conspired with the Confederates, and the House of Representative's theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted as part of a conspiracy -- should not be waved off as if they were just baseless claims that "Joe Biden is an alien."
 * Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. And sometimes it is very difficult to prove or disprove a theory, so it will forever remain a mere theory of indeterminate truthfulness. Peter L Griffin (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are using the Heap fallacy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think so--What is the heap in this circumstance?
 * It seems more accurate to characterizing the position opposite of mine as using the fallacy of composition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a continuum between crazy uncle JimBob's claim and the House of Representatives' theory, just as there is a continuum between a few grains of sand and a big heap. JimBob's reasoning is crap and you can tell that it is crap, and the House's reasoning is crap and you cannot tell it is crap but other people can.
 * Your whole approach is flawed. Wikipedia articles are base on reliable sources. You are not a reliable source, therefore the article cannot be based on your reasoning. It is pointless to try. Go publish it in a reliable source, and if the reception is good, we may be able to use it. It's the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Plausible conspiracy theories
In the above section on the talk page, I have argued that, according to this article's own sources and "Origin and usage" section, a conspiracy theory is not dubious or implausible per se, but rather a descriptive term that gained a pejorative connotation in the 20th century.

Of course there are conspiracies which are real. As per the scientific method, any conspiracy must first be theorized before it can be definitely proven. Thus, some conspiracy theories, under the non-pejorative literal definition of "conspiracy theory", are plausible.

I listed, for example, the Georgia election racketeering prosecution against Donald Trump. The prosecution's theory is that Trump "knowingly and willfully joined a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome" of the election. It is so plausible that this theorized conspiracy is true that Trump is standing trial for it.

Others argue that this article is not about those types of conspiracy theories, it is about our casual cultural conception of obviously loony conspiracy theories: QAnon, Pizzagate, Space Laser type stuff. As much as I disagree, if this is truly the consensus, then it naturally follows that we should remove the following conspiracy theories from this page:

 * Claims that British aristocrats were intentionally weakening the United States during the American Civil War in order to advance their financial interests.
 * The United States House Select Committee on Assassinations' 1979 finding that the Warren commission's report and the original FBI investigation on the JFK assassination were seriously flawed. The HSCA concluded that at least four shots were fired, with a "high probability" that two gunmen fired at Kennedy, and that a conspiracy was probable.

If the "when other explanations are more probable" clause in the first sentence of this article continues to be stated in wikivoice as applying to all conspiracy theories, it is only right to remove these plausible conspiracy theories from this page, as they do not fall within that pejorative definition of conspiracy theory. Peter L Griffin (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, this is being discussed above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like the consensus above states that conspiracy theories are false. So now, I'm starting a separate thread to remove conspiracy theories that don't meet that definition. Peter L Griffin (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Other explanations are more probable" is not the same as "false". And the bullet points you are objecting to are in a discussion about historical usage of the term. Their presence in the article is relevant in that context. MrOllie (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy Theory" is usually described with a certain pejorative connotation, as they are NOT always true, and in the same way, they are NOT always false, although I don't agree 100% with you, you are completely right in your statement, only the facts gonna say one thing or another, without the proper facts, it's just mere speculation.
 * This is how many see conspiracy theories, as speculations that have not yet been proven, however, sometimes we tend to turn our backs on something, just because some are false, which can be dangerous, as not everything is the same, no matter how tiny the difference, still nothing is the same, likewise here, it's not because 10 conspiracy theories are false and pretentious that automatically everything else be too.
 * I even agree with this idea that, in fact, conspiracy theories are somewhat baseless, however, it is important to make it clear that not all of them are like that, quite the opposite, they only make us question the world we live in. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article needs more coverage on history
This article has WP:RECENTISM issues. It is severely lacking in information about conspiracy theories before the 20th century. It also doesn't give an answer as to why that is, because there is little to no coverage on the history of conspiracy theories or the origins of conspiratorial thinking in societies, other than one or two sentences about them becoming more commonplace in the 20th and 21st centuries. PBZE (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 * As I mentioned in the topic above, the topic "Conspiracy Theory" is very controversial, especially when it comes to academic articles like Wikipedia, so it was kind of to be expected, there would be generalized ideas on the subject, so even if the article is 'WRONG', I don't think it's a disaster like many say, but, it is undeniable that there may be mistakes in the article. 177.105.90.20 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Conspiracy theory


text:
Lina Wertmüller

Arcangela Felice Assunta Wertmüller  (14 August 1928 – 9 December 2021), known as Lina Wertmüller, was an Italian film director and screenwriter. She is best known for her 1970s art house films Seven Beauties,   The Seduction of Mimi, Love and Anarchy, and Swept Away.

Wertmüller was the first female director to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Director. She won many awards, including an Academy Honorary Award, as well as a David di Donatello Career Achievement Award, and was nominated for many others, including a Golden Globe Award, two Academy Awards, and two Palme d'Or awards.

Early life
Wertmüller was born Arcangela Felice Assunta Wertmüller in Rome, Lazio, in 1928, to Federico, a lawyer from Palazzo San Gervasio, Basilicata, belonging to a devoutly Catholic family of distant Swiss descent, and to Maria Santamaria-Maurizio born in Rome. Wertmüller depicted her childhood as a period of adventure, during which she was expelled from 15 different Catholic high schools. During this time, she was infatuated with comic books, and described them as especially influential on her in her youth, particularly Alex Raymond's character Flash Gordon. Wertmüller characterized the framing of Raymond's comics as "rather cinematic, more cinematic than most films", an early indication of her inclination toward film. Wertmüller's desire to work in the film and theater industries took hold at a young age, as early on in life she developed an appreciation for the works of the Russian playwrights Pietro Sharoff, Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, and Konstantin Stanislavsky, drawing her into the world of performing arts.

After graduating from Accademia Nazionale di Arte Drammatica Silvio D'Amico in 1951, Wertmüller produced avant-garde plays, traveling throughout Europe and working as a puppeteer, stage manager, set designer, publicist, and scriptwriter for radio and television. She joined Maria Signorelli's troupe in 1951. These interests developed toward two generic avenues; one being the musical comedy and the other being grave, contemporary Italian dramas like the works of Italian playwright and director Giorgio De Lullo, whose work she described as "serious" and "politically conscious". It is these two approaches that Wertmüller stated were at the core of her creative self, and always would be.

1960s
After her years spent touring with an avant-garde puppet group, Wertmüller began to pursue a career in film. In the early 1960s, Flora Carabella, a school friend, introduced Wertmüller to her husband, the actor Marcello Mastroianni, who in turn introduced her to the film director Federico Fellini, who became her mentor. Although The Basilisks, which was scored by Ennio Morricone, was critically well received, it did not garner the level of attention her later works did. Throughout the 1960s, Wertmüller produced a series of films that were well liked but that failed to garner international success. Of these, her first collaboration with Giancarlo Giannini occurred in 1966's musical comedy Rita the Mosquito. Darragh O'Donoghue wrote in Cineaste that generally "her early films comprise a fairly straight pastiche of neorealism and early Fellini (The Lizards, 1963), an episodic comedy, two musicals, and a Spaghetti Western (The Belle Starr Story, 1968, directed under the pseudonym Nathan Wich), works where knowledge of generic predecessors was essential".

1970s
The 1970s saw the release of virtually all of Wertmüller's most influential and highly regarded films, many of which featured Giannini. According to Geoffrey Nowell-Smith's Companion to Italian Cinema, 1972 "marked the beginning of Wertmüller's golden age". Beginning in 1972 with The Seduction of Mimi, and continuing until 1978 with Blood Feud, Wertmüller released seven films, many of which are considered masterpieces of Commedia all'italiana. It was during this time she saw critical and international success, gaining traction as a filmmaker outside of Italy and in the United States on a scale that many of her contemporaries were unable to attain. In 1975, the National Board of Review in the United States awarded Swept Away Top Foreign Film, and in 1976, Wertmüller became the first female director to be nominated for an Oscar, for Seven Beauties. This film, which again features Giannini in the lead role, pushes Wertmüller's specific brand of tragic comedy to its limits, following a self-obsessed Casanova from a small Italian town who is sent to a German concentration camp. The film initially met with controversy due to Wertmüller's frankness in her rendering of the apparatuses of genocide as well as her perceived macabre insensitivity toward its survivors, but since has been accepted as her masterwork.

Wertmüller then signed a contract with Warner Bros. to make four films. The first was her first English-language film, A Night Full of Rain, which was entered into the 28th Berlin International Film Festival in 1978. The film was not a success and Warner canceled the contract. Wertmüller also had creative differences with the studio and wanted more creative freedom. In the same year, Wertmüller had another unsuccessful film Blood Feud, a mafia thriller starring Giannini, Marcello Mastroianni and Sophia Loren.

1980s & 1990s
Wertmüller's 1983 film A Joke of Destiny was entered into the 14th Moscow International Film Festival in 1985 and Camorra (A Story of Streets, Women and Crime) was entered into the 36th Berlin International Film Festival in 1986. In 1985, she received the Women in Film Crystal Award for outstanding women who have helped to expand the role of women within the entertainment industry.

After this period of acclaim, Wertmüller began to fade from international prominence, though she continued to release films well into the 1980s and '90s. Some of these films were sponsored by American financiers and studios, but failed to have the breadth of reach that her 1970s films achieved. These films are less widely seen and were neglected or disparaged by most, but Summer Night (1986) and Ferdinando & Carolina (1999) have since improved in reputation. Ciao, Professore (1992) is one of her few films of this period that was relatively well-received as the number 10 film in Italy that year.

Later life
Wertmüller was married to Enrico Job (died 4 March 2008), an art designer who worked on several of her pictures. They are survived by their daughter Maria Zulima (born 17 January 1991) who was an actress is a few of Wertmüller's films, including The Blue Collar Worker and the Hairdresser in a Whirl of Sex and Politics (1996), Ferdinando and Carolina (1999), Too Much Romance... It's Time for Stuffed Peppers (2004) and Mannaggia alla Miseria! (2009).

In 2015, Wertmüller was the subject of a biographical film directed by Valerio Ruiz, Behind the White Glasses, in which she reflects on her life's work. Wertmüller continued to work as a theater director, until her death at her home on 9 December 2021, at the age of 93.

Style and themes
Fellini's influence is evident in much of Wertmüller's work. They share empathy with the Italian working class, showing the realities of life for the politically neglected and economically downtrodden, with a tendency toward the preposterous. Wertmüller's work also seems to exhibit adoration of Italy and its varied locales, beautifying elements of her film's locations with cinematography that presents its subjects with a colorful extravagance that idealizes the distinctly Italian settings of her films. Her aesthetic borrows heavily from her background in theater, routinely using the camera to emphasize performance and the grandiose comedy of her characters’ near constant emotional frenzy. Much of her work uses formal film tactics to dramatize the misapplication and destructive qualities that political ideology can have on individuals, satirizing common conceptions of revolution and the political status quo in the process.

Narrative and cinematic reflexivity are also commonplace in Wertmüller's films, as she rehashed and reconfigured signs and modes of presentation in a way that references her inspirations and her contemporaries. This is made clear through her disruption of traditional conceptions of virtually all political dogma and the irrationality of her characters, taking recognizable elements of society and film and critiquing them by doing away with narrative and/or character plausibility.

This is particularly evident in a film like The Seduction of Mimi. This positions Mimi (played by Giannini) as an impossibly inept and simple man who fully embodies the notion of Italian machismo, as he fumbles his way through a world that throws a variety of ideologies and economic positions at him, all of which he readily inhabits. Mimi is perpetually successful in his performance of these roles, despite the audience's awareness of their inauthenticity that results from a diegetic acknowledgement of Mimi's hapless ignorance. This element of critique in the film functions as one example of one of the most prevalent themes in Wertmüller's work, a desire to deconstruct and subvert the institutions and social ideologies of a capitalist modernity. This socialist-inflected politicization of class and the institution are also extended to sexuality and gender. Most of her films deploy these elements in conjunction with her affection for the theatrical in such a way that creates a unique concoction that is undeniably within the generic confines of Commedia all’italiana. According to Peter Bondanella, "Wertmüller's work combined a concern with topical political issues and the conventions of traditional Italian grotesque comedy".

Wertmüller is known for her whimsically prolix movie titles. For instance, the full title of Swept Away is Swept away by an unusual destiny in the blue sea of August. These titles were invariably shortened for international release. She is entered in the Guinness Book of Records for the longest film title. The previously mentioned Blood Feud has the full name of ''Un fatto di sangue nel comune di Siculiana fra due uomini per causa di una vedova. Si sospettano moventi politici. Amore-Morte-Shimmy. Lugano belle. Tarantelle. Tarallucci e vino'', which totals 179 characters.

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

title: Lina Wertmüller


text:
Series and parallel circuits

Two-terminal components and electrical networks can be connected in series or parallel. The resulting electrical network will have two terminals, and itself can participate in a series or parallel topology. Whether a two-terminal "object" is an electrical component (e.g. a resistor) or an electrical network (e.g. resistors in series) is a matter of perspective. This article will use "component" to refer to a two-terminal "object" that participates in the series/parallel networks.

Components connected in series are connected along a single "electrical path", and each component has the same electric current through it, equal to the current through the network. The voltage across the network is equal to the sum of the voltages across each component.

Components connected in parallel are connected along multiple paths, and each component has the same voltage across it, equal to the voltage across the network. The current through the network is equal to the sum of the currents through each component.

The two preceding statements are equivalent, except for exchanging the role of voltage and current.

A circuit composed solely of components connected in series is known as a series circuit; likewise, one connected completely in parallel is known as a parallel circuit. Many circuits can be analyzed as a combination of series and parallel circuits, along with other configurations.

In a series circuit, the current that flows through each of the components is the same, and the voltage across the circuit is the sum of the individual voltage drops across each component. In a parallel circuit, the voltage across each of the components is the same, and the total current is the sum of the currents flowing through each component.

Consider a very simple circuit consisting of four light bulbs and a 12-volt automotive battery. If a wire joins the battery to one bulb, to the next bulb, to the next bulb, to the next bulb, then back to the battery in one continuous loop, the bulbs are said to be in series. If each bulb is wired to the battery in a separate loop, the bulbs are said to be in parallel. If the four light bulbs are connected in series, the same current flows through all of them and the voltage drop is 3 volts across each bulb, which may not be sufficient to make them glow. If the light bulbs are connected in parallel, the currents through the light bulbs combine to form the current in the battery, while the voltage drop is 12 volts across each bulb and they all glow.

In a series circuit, every device must function for the circuit to be complete. If one bulb burns out in a series circuit, the entire circuit is broken. In parallel circuits, each light bulb has its own circuit, so all but one light could be burned out, and the last one will still function.

Series circuits
Series circuits are sometimes referred to as current-coupled or daisy chain-coupled. The current in a series circuit goes through every component in the circuit. Therefore, all of the components in a series connection carry the same current.

A series circuit has only one path through which its current can flow. Opening or breaking a series circuit at any point causes the entire circuit to "open" or stop operating. For example, if even one of the light bulbs in an older-style string of Christmas tree lights burns out or is removed, the entire string becomes inoperable until the faulty bulb is replaced.

Current
$$I = I_1 = I_2 = \cdots = I_n$$

In a series circuit, the current is the same for all of the elements.

Voltage
In a series circuit, the voltage is the sum of the voltage drops of the individual components (resistance units). $$V = V_1 + V_2 + \dots + V_n = I \left( R_1 + R_2 + \dots + R_n \right)$$

Resistance units
The total resistance of two or more resistors connected in series is equal to the sum of their individual resistances:

$$R_\text{total} = R_\text{s} = R_1 + R_2 + \cdots + R_n.$$

Here, the subscript s in $R_{s}$ denotes "series", and $R_{s}$ denotes resistance in a series.

Conductance
Electrical conductance presents a reciprocal quantity to resistance. Total conductance of a series circuits of pure resistances, therefore, can be calculated from the following expression: $$\frac{1}{G_\text{total}} = \frac{1}{G_1} + \frac{1}{G_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{G_n}.$$

For a special case of two conductances in series, the total conductance is equal to: $$G_\text{total} = \frac{G_1 G_2}{G_1 + G_2}.$$

Inductors
Inductors follow the same law, in that the total inductance of non-coupled inductors in series is equal to the sum of their individual inductances:

$$L_\mathrm{total} = L_1 + L_2 + \cdots + L_n$$

However, in some situations, it is difficult to prevent adjacent inductors from influencing each other as the magnetic field of one device couples with the windings of its neighbors. This influence is defined by the mutual inductance M. For example, if two inductors are in series, there are two possible equivalent inductances depending on how the magnetic fields of both inductors influence each other.

When there are more than two inductors, the mutual inductance between each of them and the way the coils influence each other complicates the calculation. For a larger number of coils the total combined inductance is given by the sum of all mutual inductances between the various coils including the mutual inductance of each given coil with itself, which is termed self-inductance or simply inductance. For three coils, there are six mutual inductances $$M_{12}$$, $$M_{13}$$, $$M_{23}$$ and $$M_{21}$$, $$M_{31}$$ and $$M_{32}$$. There are also the three self-inductances of the three coils: $$M_{11}$$, $$M_{22}$$ and $$M_{33}$$.

Therefore $$L_\text{total} = \left(M_{11} + M_{22} + M_{33}\right) + \left(M_{12} + M_{13} + M_{23}\right) + \left(M_{21} + M_{31} + M_{32}\right)$$

By reciprocity, $$M_{ij}$$ = $$M_{ji}$$ so that the last two groups can be combined. The first three terms represent the sum of the self-inductances of the various coils. The formula is easily extended to any number of series coils with mutual coupling. The method can be used to find the self-inductance of large coils of wire of any cross-sectional shape by computing the sum of the mutual inductance of each turn of wire in the coil with every other turn since in such a coil all turns are in series.

Capacitors
Capacitors follow the same law using the reciprocals. The total capacitance of capacitors in series is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of their individual capacitances:

$$\frac{1}{C_\text{total}} = \frac{1}{C_1} + \frac{1}{C_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{C_n}.$$

Equivalently using elastance (the reciprocal of capacitance), the total series elastance equals the sum of each capacitor's elastance.

Switches
Two or more switches in series form a logical AND; the circuit only carries current if all switches are closed. See AND gate.

Cells and batteries
A battery is a collection of electrochemical cells. If the cells are connected in series, the voltage of the battery will be the sum of the cell voltages. For example, a 12 volt car battery contains six 2-volt cells connected in series. Some vehicles, such as trucks, have two 12 volt batteries in series to feed the 24-volt system.

Parallel circuits
If two or more components are connected in parallel, they have the same difference of potential (voltage) across their ends. The potential differences across the components are the same in magnitude, and they also have identical polarities. The same voltage is applied to all circuit components connected in parallel. The total current is the sum of the currents through the individual components, in accordance with Kirchhoff's current law.

Voltage
In a parallel circuit, the voltage is the same for all elements. $$V = V_1 = V_2 = \dots = V_n$$

Current
The current in each individual resistor is found by Ohm's law. Factoring out the voltage gives $$I_\text{total} = I_1 + I_2 + \cdots + I_n = V\left(\frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{R_n}\right).$$

Resistance units
To find the total resistance of all components, add the reciprocals of the resistances $$R_i$$ of each component and take the reciprocal of the sum. Total resistance will always be less than the value of the smallest resistance:

$$\frac{1}{R_\text{total}} = \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{R_n}.$$

For only two resistances, the unreciprocated expression is reasonably simple: $$R_\text{total} = \frac{R_1 R_2}{R_1 + R_2} .$$

This sometimes goes by the mnemonic product over sum.

For N equal resistances in parallel, the reciprocal sum expression simplifies to: $$\frac{1}{R_\text{total}} = N \frac{1}{R}.$$ and therefore to: $$R_\text{total} = \frac{R}{N}.$$

To find the current in a component with resistance $$R_i$$, use Ohm's law again: $$I_i = \frac{V}{R_i}\,.$$

The components divide the current according to their reciprocal resistances, so, in the case of two resistors, $$\frac{I_1}{I_2} = \frac{R_2}{R_1}.$$

An old term for devices connected in parallel is multiple, such as multiple connections for arc lamps.

Conductance
Since electrical conductance $$G$$ is reciprocal to resistance, the expression for total conductance of a parallel circuit of resistors is simply: $$G_\text{total} = G_1 + G_2 + \cdots + G_n.$$

The relations for total conductance and resistance stand in a complementary relationship: the expression for a series connection of resistances is the same as for parallel connection of conductances, and vice versa.

Inductors
Inductors follow the same law, in that the total inductance of non-coupled inductors in parallel is equal to the reciprocal of the sum of the reciprocals of their individual inductances:

$$\frac{1}{L_\text{total}} = \frac{1}{L_1} + \frac{1}{L_2} + \cdots + \frac{1}{L_n}.$$

If the inductors are situated in each other's magnetic fields, this approach is invalid due to mutual inductance. If the mutual inductance between two coils in parallel is $M$, the equivalent inductor is: $$\frac{1}{L_\text{total}} = \frac{L_1 + L_2 - 2M}{L_1L_2 - M^2}$$

If $$L_1 = L_2$$ $$ L_\text{total} = \frac{L + M}{2}$$

The sign of $$M$$ depends on how the magnetic fields influence each other. For two equal tightly coupled coils the total inductance is close to that of every single coil. If the polarity of one coil is reversed so that $M$ is negative, then the parallel inductance is nearly zero or the combination is almost non-inductive. It is assumed in the "tightly coupled" case $M$ is very nearly equal to $L$. However, if the inductances are not equal and the coils are tightly coupled there can be near short circuit conditions and high circulating currents for both positive and negative values of $M$, which can cause problems.

More than three inductors become more complex and the mutual inductance of each inductor on each other inductor and their influence on each other must be considered. For three coils, there are three mutual inductances $$M_{12}$$, $$M_{13}$$ and $$M_{23}$$. This is best handled by matrix methods and summing the terms of the inverse of the $$L$$ matrix (3×3 in this case).

The pertinent equations are of the form: $$v_{i} = \sum_{j} L_{i,j} \frac{di_j}{dt} $$

Capacitors
The total capacitance of capacitors in parallel is equal to the sum of their individual capacitances:

$$C_\text{total} = C_1 + C_2 + \cdots + C_n.$$

The working voltage of a parallel combination of capacitors is always limited by the smallest working voltage of an individual capacitor.

Switches
Two or more switches in parallel form a logical OR; the circuit carries current if at least one switch is closed. See OR gate.

Cells and batteries
If the cells of a battery are connected in parallel, the battery voltage will be the same as the cell voltage, but the current supplied by each cell will be a fraction of the total current. For example, if a battery comprises four identical cells connected in parallel and delivers a current of 1 ampere, the current supplied by each cell will be 0.25 ampere. If the cells are not identical in voltage, cells with higher voltages will attempt to charge those with lower ones, potentially damaging them.

Parallel-connected batteries were widely used to power the valve filaments in portable radios. Lithium-ion rechargeable batteries (particularly laptop batteries) are often connected in parallel to increase the ampere-hour rating. Some solar electric systems have batteries in parallel to increase the storage capacity; a close approximation of total amp-hours is the sum of all amp-hours of in-parallel batteries.

Combining conductances
From Kirchhoff's circuit laws the rules for combining conductance can be deducted. For two conductances $$G_1$$ and $$G_2$$ in parallel, the voltage across them is the same and from Kirchhoff's current law (KCL) the total current is $$I_\text{eq} = I_1 + I_2.$$

Substituting Ohm's law for conductances gives $$G_\text{eq} V = G_1 V + G_2 V$$ and the equivalent conductance will be, $$G_\text{eq} = G_1 + G_2.$$

For two conductances $$G_1$$ and $$G_2$$ in series the current through them will be the same and Kirchhoff's Voltage Law says that the voltage across them is the sum of the voltages across each conductance, that is, $$V_\text{eq} = V_1 + V_2.$$

Substituting Ohm's law for conductance then gives, $$\frac{I}{G_\text{eq}} = \frac{I}{G_1} + \frac{I}{G_2}$$ which in turn gives the formula for the equivalent conductance, $$\frac{1}{G_\text{eq}} = \frac{1}{G_1} + \frac{1}{G_2}.$$

This equation can be rearranged slightly, though this is a special case that will only rearrange like this for two components.

$$G_\text{eq} = \frac{G_1 G_2}{G_1 + G_2}.$$ For three conductances in series, $$G_\text{eq} = \frac{G_1 G_2 G_3}{G_1 G_2 + G_1 G_3 + G_2 G_3}.$$

Notation
The value of two components in parallel is often represented in equations by the parallel operator, two vertical lines (∥), borrowing the parallel lines notation from geometry. $$R_\mathrm{eq} \equiv R_1 \parallel R_2 \equiv \left(R_1^{-1} + R_2^{-1}\right)^{-1} \equiv \frac{R_1 R_2}{R_1 + R_2}$$

This simplifies expressions that would otherwise become complicated by expansion of the terms. For instance: $$R_1 \parallel R_2 \parallel R_3 \equiv \frac{R_1 R_2 R_3}{R_1 R_2 + R_1 R_3 + R_2 R_3}. $$

If $n$ components are in parallel, then $$R_\text{eq} = \left(\sum_i^n {R_i}^{-1}\right)^{-1}$$

Applications
A common application of series circuit in consumer electronics is in batteries, where several cells connected in series are used to obtain a convenient operating voltage. Two disposable zinc cells in series might power a flashlight or remote control at 3 volts; the battery pack for a hand-held power tool might contain a dozen lithium-ion cells wired in series to provide 48 volts.

Series circuits were formerly used for lighting in electric multiple units trains. For example, if the supply voltage was 600 volts there might be eight 70-volt bulbs in series (total 560 volts) plus a resistor to drop the remaining 40 volts. Series circuits for train lighting were superseded, first by motor-generators, then by solid state devices.

Series resistance can also be applied to the arrangement of blood vessels within a given organ. Each organ is supplied by a large artery, smaller arteries, arterioles, capillaries, and veins arranged in series. The total resistance is the sum of the individual resistances, as expressed by the following equation: $R_{total} = R_{artery} + R_{arterioles} + R_{capillaries}$. The largest proportion of resistance in this series is contributed by the arterioles.

Parallel resistance is illustrated by the circulatory system. Each organ is supplied by an artery that branches off the aorta. The total resistance of this parallel arrangement is expressed by the following equation: $1/R_{total} = 1/R_{a} + 1/R_{b} + ... + 1/R_{n}$. $R_{a}$, $R_{b}$, and $R_{n}$ are the resistances of the renal, hepatic, and other arteries respectively. The total resistance is less than the resistance of any of the individual arteries.

title: Series and parallel circuits


text:
Electron orbital

An electron orbital may refer to:

 * An atomic orbital, describing the behaviour of an electron in an atom
 * A molecular orbital, describing the behaviour of an electron in a molecule

title: Electron orbital


text:
Talk:Professional wrestling match types

Cinematic Matches
Is it time for us to write a paragraph on cinematic matches as a special style, or is it too early? Maybe with a mention that it grew more frequent during the Pandemic lockdown? DinobotTM2 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Oldest form of enclosure?
"Cages are one of the oldest form of enclosures used in professional wrestling. According to some historians, the first "cage match" of any kind took place on June 25, 1937 in Atlanta, Georgia.[69] "

This is absurd. When did wrestling begin? More than 2000 years ago. But the oldest type of wrestling enclosure came into use less than 80 years ago? One of those two sentences (or perhaps both) should go. LarsMarius (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Three Way/Four Way Dance under "Non-Elimination Type"?
Folks... it's a misnomer to put Triple Threat under non-elimination type matches, then say "also known as the Three Way Dance"...  Same goes for saying a Fatal Fourway (in the same section) is "otherwise known as a Four Way Dance"...  The "Dance" varients are the elimination versions of those matches. Not sure how we want to correct that, other than to just delete the "aka" notes... 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Steve

TerrorDome vs Thundercage
Honestly, aside from victory method, what's the difference between the TerrorDome and the Thundercage? They're both domed cages surrounding the ring. I think they're even the same height.«»bd(talk stalk) 03:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so too, I think we should just make note in the thundercage section that a variation is used, which is not electrified.-- ~    S    R    S    ~   03:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can come up with a reason they're different, I'm re-merging them tonight.«»bd(talk stalk) 14:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Thundercage always a Hell in a Cell style cage with the roof slanted slightly? It wasn't enclosed on top, it wasn't circular, and the object wasn't to escape the cage.  And we aren't even sure the TerrorDome is going to cover the whole ringside area.  There doesn't seem to be anything similar at all. VWG (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It had flat sides that started to curve in at the top but never touched. A differing win style doesn't change the fact that it's the same cage.«»bd(talk stalk) 13:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That whole section is kind of jacked up... "In Wolrd Championship Wrestling, from the film Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, this cage is curved..." Was it used in WCW but based on the movie? The hell are we tryign to say? 214.3.138.234 (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Steve

Last Man Standing Match
Should this have its own article with history? It's quite a high profile match that' been around for nearly 10 years. The only problem is I cannot find a history of it anywhere Mark handscombe (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

King of the Mountain
I don't think KOTM should not be merged with this page. If we do that then why not add the Ladder match page too or TLC to it aswell.-- Will C  23:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

ECW extreme rules
why it does not say about this match ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabe0mac (talk • contribs) 18:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Because it's a simple hardcore affair. It just has a different name. PlaguedKiller (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Championship Scramble
The CS match has nothing to do with a battle royal. Just checking the characteristics:

The "Hardcore BR" in WM 2000 can be considered a "between" both concepts, but that doesn't make the CS a BR type. There are many differences between both. Garavello (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

vandalism
Basic non-elimination matches

at the end someone added a stupid comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.33.106 (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Spider web death match
Ther is no information about about the spider web death match. It is created by CZW. In this match two sides of the ring is sorrounded by barbed wire. The other two sides has no barbed wire or ring. there is also something on the floor which i dont know about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilal2009 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Firstly it wasn't created by CZW, as it was used in the mid 90's by FMW. Also, it was originally called Spider Net Deathmatch. It has 2 sides of the ring with barbed wire instead of ropes & the other 2 sides have no ropes, but wooden boards on the ground outside with the spider nets, basically like small nets made of barbed wire, sometimes rigged with explosives. I agree this should be added 193.120.161.6 (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

#1 Contender's Match
A match where the winner of this match wins a title challenge against the current title holder.That title match could even take place at a WrestleMania event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wweundertakerwwe (talk • contribs) 17:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Cuffed in the Cage match?
Why is there no mention of this? Anyone want to add it? I know nothing of the rules or concept, except that it was used at Lockdown (2008). ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 03:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Masterlock challenges
I didn't see this in the wikipedia entry, it should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.162.173 (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Lethal Lockdown Match seperate Page
The Lethal Lockdown match is the staple match at TNA Lockdown each and every year. It has a 5 -> 6 year history, a very important match of TNA and other important stipulation matches such as Hell in Cell, TLC, Ultimate X and the King of the Mountain Match all have their own page with history of the matches. It deserves its own page....... 86.43.177.159 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

2 Inferno matches?
I believe there were 4. Two featuring Kane vs. Taker, both of which Kane lost. One vs. Triple H, which Kane also lost after Taker interfered. And then the match with MVP. I MAY be thinking of a different match, but I recall reading about all four matches in the past. I'll try to dig up some info if I can. Apperently, only the first and last Inferno matches were on PPV. The other two were on Raw and SmackDown episodes respectively.

http://prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/Inferno_match

A google search also yields videos of said matches on Youtube, so they did indeed happen. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a quick edit as i was falling asleep as that section had been vandalised a bit too much. I could only recall two but if there were four I won't argue. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Should "Feast or Fired" get its own page?
The layout can be easily made. It can be the exact same design as the Money in the Bank page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L14M-J (talk • contribs) 12:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Championship Scramble
The championship scramble should have its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfvi dreamer (talk • contribs) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cage of Death
Cage of Death should be added to the cage match variants. CZW is the only promotion that uses the Cage of Death. I was wondering why it hasn't been added. I will find some information on it later once I am done another task I am doing. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 18:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Steel Cage
Why hasn't the Steel Cage gotten its own page yet? It's been with WWE since WrestleMania 1st began.--Nascarking (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a matter of how long a match has been around....it depends on if the match type has enough information available in reliable third party sources to justify having an article. I think it used to have an article but when the WP:LISTCRUFT-y list of every steel cage match in WWE was removed, there wasn't much info left. Nikki  ♥  311   18:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hang 'em high match
This match features either a lasso/noose or even pair of handcuffs suspended via a pulley (either electorinic or old fashioned rope) over the midle of the ring, just high enough to be within reach of the competitors. Victory is earned by trapping the opponent's wrists or ankles in the restraint and then hoisting them up off of the mat. If an electronic pulley, then the button sits on one of the turnbuckles. If an old fashioned rope pulley, the rope rests on a turnbuckle and most be pulled by the winner to elevate the loser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.178.86.60 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Stretcher Match
I was linked to this page via the Theodore Long page where it mentions he created the stretcher match on Smackdown, but I can't see anything on this page (in so much as 'Ctrl F' doesn't find the word 'stretcher' and a quick scan doesn't find it) - does this need to be added, or should the link be removed? Or am I just missing it completely? BulbaThor (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there a "good housekeeping match"??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.92.1.251 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Kennal from Hell match
I didnt see the Kennal from Hell match from Unforgiven 2002 between Al Snow and Big Boss man here the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7OmP1FIHZM&feature=related Xtomox (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

3 Stages
There is a match based on the 'two out of three falls' match called a 3 Stages of (somewhere that I don't feel like talking about) match. Every fall is a different match type. There could be, for instance, a singles match, followed by a Punjabi prison match, followed by a casket match. I believe they talk something about this match type on smackdown.wikia.com or wikia.smackdown.com or something like that. Please add this match type. Thank you.209.213.145.236 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Relay match sourceless
There is no source for the relay match. Please fix this. Thank you.209.213.155.16 (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

How to win a substance match
It doesn't mention how one would win a substance match. Also, the entry is sourceless. Please fix this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.155.16 (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

COMPLETE VADALISM
Someone has vandalised this page! Someone fix this! THanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.155.16 (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC) I cannot stress how much we need to FIX THIS! Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

WE NEED TO FIX THIS NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Blindfold match
THere is a type of match called a blindfold match. Both competitors where blindfolds. Other than that, it is a singles match. An example was at the Sin City SmackDown between Santino Marella and Drew McIntyre. Please look it up on YouTube if you don't believe me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.155.16 (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Where did the Light's Out match go?
The Light's Out match isn't there anymore. Can someone fix this please? Thanks.209.213.155.16 (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please get rid of the Bikini Contest
This is just silly. While they do happen in professional wrestling rings, they are hardly professional wrestling match types. If we allowed this we would have to allow all the silly talk shows, contract signings, weigh-ins, debates, etc. that the WWE uses. dj_ansi (talk) 05:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Scaffold Match
Why is there nothing about this? 24.94.249.157 (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

remove forever "capture the midget"
Does this really deserve inclusion? Let alone its own section? It was a one-time joke from 14 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:365A:2F30:71D5:1147:E1C5:AC60 (talk) 11:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this page really needs a CLEANUP?
A couple of hours before, a user named Nikki311 remove about half of informations in this article. She removed "example cruft" and "list cruft". So, it is really necessary to make a cleanup in this article? Seiken Flame~enwiki (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is not a wrestling fan page. That level of detail goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Plus it is impossible to list every match that ever takes place. Why did only some have lists? What makes one match more important than another? Do we only list matches until they've hit a certain number and then it is too commonplace so it gets deleted? That sort of stuff belongs on the Pro Wrestling Wiki, not an encyclopedia where every article is supposed to be accessible be everyone. Nikki  ♥  311   03:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please for the love pf god will someone keep this article clean?? I think bare minimum a match ahould have occured twice. And if its the exact aame gimmick under a different name, then just list them all in one paragraph. 2601:346:C201:60C0:9494:72BC:7525:A7CB (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Clean up
Oh boy, does this article need clean up. It is repetitive and disorganized. A good example is the Container-based variations section. Really all that needs to be said is that: 1) these matches are won by putting the opponent into (or onto in the case of a stretcher) a particular object, 2) the loser may or may not be "carried out" in said container, and 3) the name for each particular match relates to the precise container used, either literally (like "dumpster match") or figuratively (like "last ride" for a hearse). There's no reason to --Khajidha (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 * Please for the love of god will someone keep this article clean?? I think bare minimum a match ahould have occured twice. And if its the exact same gimmick under a different name, then just list them all in one paragraph. 2601:346:C201:60C0:9494:72BC:7525:A7CB (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Michael Shechter on a Pole
Excuse me—who is this? What is this? כרסומת (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Last Man/Woman Standing match info
In the last man/woman subsection there is very little info. When was the first last man standing match? When was the most recent last man standing match? When was the first last woman standing match? When was the most recent last woman standing match? How many last woman standing matches have there been? (Fran Bosh (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC))

TOC
Currently the TOC for this article has over 250 entries. I really don't think every single possible match type needs its own section (and therefore TOC entry). Many of them are only different from each other in very small details and could easily be grouped together in paragraphs under a single heading rather than bloating the TOC to such an insane extent -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Professional wrestling match types


text:
Talk:Electron orbital

I realize that the whole Periodic Table argument may carry on indefinitely. I wonder if anyone can confirm whether there is any point in continuing the work I started below (or if it is even relevant):

- Well.... we already have several periodic tables elsewhere on Wikipedia. This article should be about Electron orbitals. -- Tarquin 19:32 17 Jul 2003 (UTC) - Yes, I know. I should have made it more clear that I was proposing a format... I realize that the Periodic Table will contain slightly different information. -- sugarfish 19:44 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I certainly believe that tabular data belongs in the article, to show by element which orbitals are occupied. My own shoice would be to avoid repeating the standard periodic table and go with a simpler layout, with entries like 2-8-2. That said. we certinly need some kind of article and expansion of atomic shells. Keep up the good work, Lou I 19:51 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've included enough information to explain the main points regarding the topic. The table needs some coloring I think, according to the periods that the elements belong to. Let me know -- sugarfish 08:31 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * I like the vertical table with the orbital numbers. very nice! -- Tarquin 09:18 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What's all this about K-Q? No class I've ever taken has used that nomenclature. It's simpler to index orbitals by principal quantum number $$n$$, so that "K" is 1, "L" is 2, "Q" is 7, etc.

Furthermore, it would be more enlightening to further separate the electron distributions by quantum number $$l$$, thus: 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, 3p, 4s, 3d, etc.

Another question. This article seems woefully bare. I can't bring myself to believe that not a single one of the many Wikipedists with any chemistry education at all has noticed this article's pitiful condition. Unless someone explains to me exactly what is the matter here, and where the real article on electron orbitals lives, I'll have to redo this whole thing myself from the ground up. --Smack 21:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

revision
I've related the electron orbitals page properly to quantum mechanics and revised the page to make it focus on the generality of orbitals and link to wavefunction. Can someone move the periodic table Talk to somewhere more appropriate - such as Periodic Table? It doesn't belong under electron orbitals, which, from how it appears in atomic and molecular orbitals, is giving a basic background to orbitals. Next stage is to revise atomic and molecular orbitals...--Ian 15:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Complete vs. time-independent wavefunctions
I have some idea of the distinction between the full form of a wavefunction (Ψ) and the form that it takes after the time-dependent term is divided out (ψ), but I don't really have the knowledge to sort it out and make the article consistent and accurate. Could someone take care of this? --Smack (talk) 05:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with atomic orbital?
Dear editors,

I really believe this page should be merged with atomic orbital.

What is an electron orbital if it is neither an atomic nor molecular orbital?

Moreover many errors are spoiling this article.

For example, it is not correct that an electron in an atom or a molecule has a quantized energy. This is the atom or the molecule which does! It is only a first (Hartree-Fock-type) approximation to consider that each electron is described by a one-electron Hamiltonian.

I have tried first to correct this article but now I don't see at all why one should try to.

I am awaiting your comments.

17:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe that all three orbital articles have merit and should be retained. This article should be a general introduction to the subject, while the other two deal with the specifics of the two types of orbitals.  As for electrons having quantized energy, you're correct in a way, but in another way, I think you're wrong.  An orbital is a one-electron wavefunction, so it does have a quantized energy.  The fact that an electron occupies a linear combination of orbitals is only tangential to an introductory discussion.

 * I understand that you have legitimate reasons to want to merge this page, but I would like to insistently discourage you from using page merges as a relatively quick and easy alternative to rewrites. --Smack (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * P.S: Please describe the "numerous errors" over which you repeatedly removed a section of the article. --Smack (talk) 02:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You are right an orbital is a one-electron wavefunction but this is by noway a reason for its energy to be quantized. One-electron wavefunctions can be time-depending wave packet or scattering states, i.e. with scattering boundary conditions ($$\Psi \approx e^{-i\vec{k} \cdot \vec{r}} + f e^{ikr}$$ for large r), or even non normalized Siegert functions ($$\Psi \approx f e^{ikr}$$ with complex valued k for large r).  In fact in general an orbital is not an eigenfunction of a Hamiltonian.  It is just a one-electron wavefunction used in the expansion of the many body wave function in term of Slater determinants.  One can choose it how one wants in order that the Hartree-Fock limit is satifactorily reached and the many-body configuration interaction expansion of the wave function converges fast to its full CI limit. In practice one often use the Hartree-Fock method which defines orbitals as eigenfunctions of the Fock operator.  Expanding this equation in a set of square integrable wave functions (see Roothaan equations) leads to quantized energies (Koopman's theorem energies -- which are different of the usual definition of energy expected values) but this is just due to the fact that the basis set is not large enough to span the continuous spectrum of the Hamiltonian.  I think the lately re-written article on molecular orbital is more or less free from faulty judgments.  I suggest you to read it carefully.  But if you still don't agree have a look at good text books like Szabo and Oslund (SZABO A. and OSLUND N.S. (1989), Modern Quantum Chemistry: Introduction to Advanced Electronic Structure Theory, New York, McGraw-Hill).

 * You ask me to point out the plenty errors I have observed in the math section. Let me just tell you a simple one : the probability density is not $$\Psi^2$$ but $$|\Psi|^2$$.

 * Moreover for me an electron orbital is by noway a key concept (since it can only be defined in the context of atomic or molecular orbital) and should not be the topic of a wiki article. I suggest to change it into a disambiguation page pointing to atomic and molecular orbital articles. 147.231.28.83 08:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * What you say is true (to the extent that I can judge) of general one-electron wavefunctions, but it is my understanding that non-eigen wavefunctions are not considered orbitals. --Smack (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S: It is also my understanding that wavepackets, linear combination solutions, etc. are also not considered orbitals. As for the status of orbitals as a trivial special case of wavefunctions, I guess you're right, but many non-orbital wavefunctions are transitory, as they depict moving particles. --Smack (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You are fully right but when you say An orbital is a one-electron wavefunction, so it does have a quantized energy you are not correct.  Moreover orbitals must not be eigenfunction!  They can be chosen arbitrarily such that they span the relevant Hilbert space and the configuration interaction expansion converge fast.  They are usually chosen as the Fock operator eigenfunctions but other methods exist!Vb 08:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Electron orbital