text:
Talk:Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address

copyvio
I have removed the paragraphs copied from a copyrighted website, http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/inaug2.htm Hal Jespersen 00:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This should have different sections, why isn't it listed under "stub"? Ryse 00:42, 1 May 2007

Name Change
I have reverted the change in the name of this article to "Abraham Lincoln 1865 presidential inauguration". Lincoln's Second Inaugural address is one of Lincoln's most famous, most significant, and most quoted speeches. This article is about his speech, not his inauguration. When historians write about the speech, they use the speeches title. The following from WP:NAME seems to have been totally ignored by the editor who made the change:

''The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more. In particular, the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain. Especially when there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any proposal to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before a name is changed.''

Absent the development of consensus ON THIS DISCUSSION PAGE for a name change, the name should remain as it is. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with that.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Likewise. I strongly suggest that the name remain "Lincoln's second inaugural address".  It's one of the most famous speeches in U.S. history, and the article is about the speech, not the inauguration.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * An article on the speech is certainly notable in its own right - there should be a separate one on the inauguration. Joshdboz (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I originally (and likely prematurely) moved this article. I agree that there is no reason the inauguration and the address can't have separate articles when it is warranted.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Your premature (but good faith) efforts were easily remedied. However Chrism has complicated the issue with his tagging of this article and directing that all discussion be directed to the Obama Inauguration discussion. It needs to be made perfectly clear that whether this article is renamed rests entirely on the discussion on this page, not the Obama page.  You seem to be agreeable to maintaining this article with its current name, but I'm not sure that this will be the position taken by Chrism and others. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Understood. And I appreciate your pointing these things out.  If we wanted to establish consensus and create a new convention for naming US presidential inauguration articles, that should be taken to WP:Naming conventions or the Village Pump or similar.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  17:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The belated tag added to this page wants to divert all of the discussion on this issue to an article on Barack Obama. While I have registered my opposition there and encourage others to do so, I consider that forum as illegitimate since it goes against the guidelines I cited above requiring that each article be treated on a case by case basis. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was an ill-advised tag, particularly since everyone who has expressed a view wants the title to stay where it is now. Lincoln's second inaugural is one of the most important speeches in American history - there is wide, wide agreement on this point - and it's absurd to think that it should not have its own article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth
What is the source for John Wilkes Booth in the photograph? Lusanders (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The picture caption is incorrect. It is not the only photograph taken of the inauguration. Also, the man identified as John Wilkes Booth is the wrong guy. Here is a good reference regarding where Booth is in the pictures: http://boothiebarn.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/booth-at-lincolns-second-inauguration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.124.29 (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama
The fact that Barack Obama mentioned Lincoln's speech seems to me to be a minor point that does not fit with the theme of this article. I would imagine that this is not the first time someone has referenced what is obviously a very important speech in American history. It is just something that seems important right now because it is in the news recently, but in the larger picture the Fort Hood shooting is a relatively minor historical event. As a result I am going to remove this reference. If someone wants to add it back in please explain your reasons. It is not a big deal to me, but the way it is currently written the information seems out of place.Wikiuser1239 (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree. It is recentism.  I am sure that if you google any random president plus a choice phrase from the speech, you'll come up with something.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"He had long wondered...."
"He had long wondered what God's will might have been in allowing the war to come, and why it had assumed the terrible dimensions it had taken." What is the source for the assertion "He had long wondered..."? Are there writings by Lincoln or other sources to substantiate this? Otherwise, it seems like he may just as well have not ever had thought about it until he started writing the speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.103.61.130 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. For some reason, I'm just now noticing this talk page entry, but I've made a correction in line with the point that you raise here.  Thanks for your input! - Ecjmartin (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Too much original research
This article is a mess, I propose to revert back to an earlier draft that isn't so overloaded with original research and other garbage. Any objections? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I'm fine with that. And quite frankly, there needs to be something in the introduction explaining WHY this speech is so famous or important. The speech is not so well known just because it happened to be the inaugural address that Lincoln gave upon reelection, or because its tone was of "sadness," etc. This is a speech that is all but universally renowned as the one of the greatest speeches in American history and an extraordinary work of political prose. Many historians have argued that it is the greatest speech Lincoln ever gave, and many consider it the greatest (by far) of all U.S. presidential inaugural addresses (not to mention countless presidential speechwriters have studied it and tried to emulate it). There needs to be something in the introduction that explains that (or at least recognizes it) up front. I seem to recall that there were things like that in earlier versions. The stuff about Booth and company being in the crowd is interesting, of course, but is of secondary importance for the intro. Harry Yelreh (talk) 03:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 * I agree with the previous person's statement, but I'm curious as to what "original research and other garbage" you're referring to. I'd like some elaboration on that (or maybe just a link to the previous version you want to revert to), if you'd be okay with that.  Thanks! - Ecjmartin (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Full speech quoted
Is there a reason why the entirety of the speech is quoted in the article? For what purpose is there a link to Wikisource, when there is another conflicting version of the text in the Wikipedia article, as well? And which one has the authentic speech, Wikipedia or Wikisource? The first paragraph has a different wording, and punctuation throughout the text is as well different. I'd think that Wikisource should suffice. --Enyavar (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

"Mine eyes have seen the Glory of the Coming of the Lord"
I added the first part of the Battle Hymn of the Republic for emphasis. 73.85.201.78 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Audio recording
The audio version of the second inaugural address has an egregious mispronunciation. “Deprecated” is read as “Depreciated.” 2600:6C50:67F:D562:AD0F:76A:7EF2:FFCA (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Charlie Chaplin

Monsieur Verdoux and communist accusations is.. misleading
In "Monsieur Verdoux and communist accusations" It talks about "The FBI wanted him out of the country, and launched an official investigation in early 1947.", and then goes on to talk about "Chaplin received a subpoena to appear before the House Un-American Activities Committee, like it was done after the FBI launched the investigation. But the subpoena was in 1941... well before the investigation. It also leave out the reason for the subpoena, which was his speech in his movie the Great Dictator, that the Committee felt sounded "Un-American".Shion-ko (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

1915 not 2015
He directed his own films and continued to hone his craft as he moved to Essanay Studios, where the Tramp persona was developed emotionally in The Tramp (2015).

1915 not 2015

Mattb29 (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Charlie Chaplin


text:
Photographic filter

In photography and cinematography, a filter is a camera accessory consisting of an optical filter that can be inserted into the optical path. The filter can be of a square or oblong shape and mounted in a holder accessory, or, more commonly, a glass or plastic disk in a metal or plastic ring frame, which can be screwed into the front of or clipped onto the camera lens.

Filters modify the images recorded. Sometimes they are used to make only subtle changes to images; other times the image would simply not be possible without them. In monochrome photography, coloured filters affect the relative brightness of different colours; red lipstick may be rendered as anything from almost white to almost black with different filters. Others change the colour balance of images, so that photographs under incandescent lighting show colours as they are perceived, rather than with a reddish tinge. There are filters that distort the image in a desired way, diffusing an otherwise sharp image, adding a starry effect, etc. Linear and circular polarising filters reduce oblique reflections from non-metallic surfaces.

Many filters absorb part of the light available, necessitating longer exposure. As the filter is in the optical path, any imperfections – non-flat or non-parallel surfaces, reflections (minimised by optical coating), scratches, dirt – affect the image.

There is no universal or reliably standard naming or labelling system for filters. The Wratten numbers adopted in the early twentieth century by Kodak, then a dominant force in film photography, are used by several manufacturers, but the degree of correspondence between the filters and the number labels is only approximate. Most colour correction filters are somewhat more accurately identified by a code of the form CC$aa$b, e.g. CC50Y – CC for colour correction, $aa$ = 50 for the strength of the filter (50%), and b = Y for yellow.

Optical filters are used in various areas of science, including in particular astronomy; photographic filters are roughly the same as "optical" filters, but in practice optical filters often need far more accurately controlled optical properties and precisely defined transmission curves than filters only made for general photography. Photographic filters sell in larger quantities, at correspondingly lower prices, than many laboratory filters. The article on optical filters has information relevant to photographic filters, particularly special-purpose photographic filters like color enhancing filters and high-quality photographic filters, like sharp cut-off UV filters.

In digital photography the majority of filters used with film cameras have been rendered redundant by digital filters applied either in-camera or during post processing. Exceptions include the ultraviolet (UV) filter typically used to protect the front surface of the lens, the neutral density (ND) filter, the polarising filter, color-enhancing filters, and the infra red (IR) filter. The neutral density filter permits effects requiring wide apertures or long exposures to be applied to brightly lit scenes, while the graduated neutral density filter is useful in situations where the scene's dynamic range exceeds the capability of the sensor. Not using optical filters in front of the lens has the advantage of avoiding the reduction of image quality caused by the presence of an extra optical element in the light path and may be necessary to avoid vignetting when using wide-angle lenses.

Uses
Filters in photography can be classified according to their use:
 * Clear and ultraviolet
 * Color correction
 * Color conversion (or light balance)
 * Color separation, also called color subtraction
 * Contrast enhancement
 * Infrared
 * Neutral density, including the graduated neutral density filter and solar filter
 * Polarizing
 * Special effects of various kinds, including
 * Graduated color, called color grads
 * Cross screen and star diffractors
 * Diffusion and contrast reduction
 * Spot
 * Close-up or macro diopters, and split diopters or split focus

Clear and ultraviolet
Clear filters, also known as window glass filters or optical flats, are transparent and (ideally) perform no filtering of incoming light. The only use of a clear filter is to protect the front of a lens.

Clear glass will absorb some UV.

UV filters are used to block invisible ultraviolet light, to which most photographic sensors and film are at least slightly sensitive. The UV is typically recorded as if it were blue light, so this non-human UV sensitivity can result in an unwanted exaggeration of the bluish tint of atmospheric haze or, even more unnaturally, of subjects in open shade lit by the ultraviolet-rich sky.

Normally, the glass or plastic of a camera lens is practically opaque to short-wavelength UV, but transparent to long-wavelength (near-visible) UV. A UV filter passes all or nearly all of the visible spectrum but blocks virtually all ultraviolet radiation. (Most spectral manipulation filters are named for the radiation they pass; green and infrared filters pass their named colors, but a UV filter blocks UV.) It can be left on the lens for nearly all shots: UV filters are often used mainly for lens protection in the same way as clear filters. A strong UV filter, such as a Haze-2A or UV17, cuts off some visible light in the violet part of the spectrum, and has a pale yellow color; these strong filters are more effective at cutting haze, reduce purple fringing in digital cameras, and can subtly darken pale blue skies – which improves contrast between sky and clouds. Strong UV filters are also sometimes used for warming color photos taken in shade with daylight-type film. They were originally developed to increase contrast in airborne surveillance photography, and were adopted by mountaineering photographers to remedy the strong UV at high altitude. While in certain cases, such as harsh environments, a protection filter may be necessary, there are also downsides to this practice. Arguments for the use of protection filters include:
 * If the lens is dropped, the filter may well suffer scratches or breakage instead of the front lens element.
 * The filter can be cleaned frequently without damage to the lens surface or coatings; a filter scratched by cleaning is much less expensive to replace than a lens.
 * If there is blowing sand the filter will protect the front of the lens from abrasion and nicks.
 * A few lenses, such as some of Canon's L series lenses, require the use of a filter to complete their weather sealing.

Arguments against their use include:
 * Adding another element may degrade image quality if its surfaces are less than perfectly flat and parallel. Filters from reputable makers are very unlikely to cause any problems, but some "bargain" products are optically inferior.
 * The two additional reflections at air-glass interfaces inevitably result in some light loss – at least four percent at each interface, if the surfaces are uncoated; they also increase the potential for lens flare problems.
 * Low-quality filters may cause problems with autofocus.
 * A filter may be incompatible with the use of a lens hood, since not all filters have the required threading for a screw-in hood or will allow a clip-on hood to be attached. Adding a lens hood on top of one or more filters may space the hood away from the lens enough to cause some vignetting.

There is a wide variation in the spectral UV blocking by filters described as ultraviolet.

Color conversion
Appropriate color conversion filters are used to compensate for the effects of lighting not balanced for the film stock's rated color temperature (usually 3200 K for professional tungstens and 5500 K for daylight): e.g., the 80A blue filter used with film for daylight use corrects the perceived orange/reddish cast of incandescent photographic photoflood lighting (for which the usual photographic term is "tungsten lighting"), and significantly improves the stronger cast produced by lower-temperature household incandescent lighting, while the 85B will correct the bluish cast of daylight photographs on tungsten film. Color correction filters are identified by non-standardised numbers which vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. The need for these filters has been greatly reduced by the widespread adoption of digital photography, since color balance may be corrected with camera settings as the image is captured, or by software manipulation afterwards.

Color conversion filters (LB filters) must be distinguished from color correction filters (CC filters), which filter out a particular color cast f.e. caused by Schwarzschild effect etc.

Color subtraction
Color subtraction filters work by absorbing certain colors of light, letting the remaining colors through. They can be used to demonstrate the primary colors that make up an image. They are perhaps most frequently used in the printing industry for color separations, and again, use has diminished as digital solutions have become more advanced and abundant.

Didymium filters, sold as "color enhancement" or "fall color" filters act similarly: They remove a narrow (or broad) band of color in the yellow part of the spectrum (589 nm). Some astronomical filters similarly use didymium in heavier concentration. Even astronomical filters which don't use didymium typically are some kind of narrow pass-band color filter.

Contrast enhancement
Colored filters are commonly used in black and white photography to alter the effect of different colors in the scene, changing contrast recorded in black and white of the different colours.

For example, a yellow filter or, more dramatically, an orange or red filter, will enhance the contrast between clouds and sky by darkening the blue sky while leaving the clouds bright (after exposure compensation). A deep green filter will also darken the sky, and additionally lighten green foliage, making it stand out against the sky. Light yellowish-green filters were used as standard portrait filters for panchromatic film, since they render skin-tones as light to dark grey, while darkening deep reds and blues to nearly black.

A sky-blue filter (cyan) mimics the effect of older orthochromatic film – or with a "true blue" filter, even older film only sensitive to blue light – rendering blue as light and red and green as dark, showing blue skies the same as overcast, with no contrast between sky and clouds, darkening blond hair, making blue eyes nearly white, and red lips nearly black.

Diffusion filters have the opposite, contrast-reducing effect; in addition they "soften" focus, making small blemishes invisible.

Polarizer
A polarizing filter, used for both color and black-and-white photography, is colourless and does not affect colour balance, but filters out light with a particular direction of polarisation. This reduces oblique reflections from non-metallic surfaces, can darken the sky in colour photography (in monochrome photography colour filters are more effective), and can saturate the image more by eliminating unwanted reflections.

Linear polarising filters, while effective, can interfere with metering and auto-focus mechanisms when mirrors or beam-splitters are in the light path, as in the digital single lens reflex camera; a circular polarizer is also effective, and does not affect metering or auto-focus.

Neutral density
A neutral density filter (ND filter) is a filter of uniform density which attenuates light of all colors equally. It is used to allow a longer exposure (to create blur) or larger aperture (for selective focus) than otherwise required for correct exposure in the prevailing light conditions, without changing the tonal balance of the photograph.

A graduated neutral density filter is a neutral density filter with different attenuation at different points, typically clear in one half shading into a higher density in the other. It can be used, for example, to photograph a scene with part in deep shadow and part brightly lit, where otherwise either the shadows would have no detail or the highlights would be burnt out.

Cross
A cross screen filter, also known as a star filter, creates a star pattern, in which lines radiate outward from bright objects. The star pattern is generated by a very fine diffraction grating embedded in the filter, or sometimes by the use of prisms in the filter. The number of stars varies by the construction of the filter, as does the number of points each star has.

Diffusion

A diffusion filter (also called a softening filter) softens subjects and generates a dreamy haze (see photon diffusion). This is most often used for portraits. It also has the effect of reducing contrast, and the filters are designed, labeled, sold, and used for that purpose too. There are many ways of accomplishing this effect, and thus filters from different manufacturers vary significantly. The two primary approaches are to use some form of grid or netting in the filter, or to use something which is transparent but not optically sharp.

Both effects can be achieved in software, which can in principle provide a very precise degree of control of the level of effect, however the "look" may be noticeably different. If there is too much contrast in a scene, the dynamic range of the digital image sensor or film may be exceeded, which post-processing cannot compensate for, so contrast reduction at the time of image capture may be called for.

Close-up and split diopter lenses
A close-up lens is not technically a filter but accessory lens which attaches to a lens like a filter, hence the alternative but misleading term "close-up filter". They are often sold by filter manufacturers as part of their product lines, using the same holders and attachment systems. A close-up lens is a single or two-element converging lens used for close-up and macro photography, and works in the same way as spectacles used for reading. The insertion of a converging lens in front of the taking lens reduces the focal length of the combination.

Close-up lenses are usually specified by their optical power, the reciprocal of the focal length in meters. Several close-up lenses may be used in combination; the optical power of the combination is the sum of the optical powers of the component lenses; a set of lenses of +1, +2, and +4 diopters can be combined to provide a range from +1 to +7 in steps of one.

A split diopter has just a semicircular half of a close-up lens in a normal filter holder. It can be used to photograph a close object and a much more distant background, with everything in sharp focus; with any non-split lens the depth of field would be far too shallow.

Materials and construction
Photo filters are commonly made from glass, resin plastics similar to those used for eyeglasses (such as CR-39), polyester and polycarbonate; sometimes acetate is used. Historically, filters were often made from gelatin, and color gels. While some filters are still described as gelatin or gel filters, they are no longer actually made from gelatin but from one of the plastics mentioned above.

Sometimes the filter is dyed in the mass, in other cases the filter is a thin sheet of material sandwiched between two pieces of clear glass or plastic.

Certain kinds of filters use other materials inside a glass sandwich; for example, polarizers often use various special films, netting filters have nylon netting, and so forth.

The rings on screw-on filters are often made of aluminum, though in more expensive filters brass is used. Aluminum filter rings are much lighter in weight, but can "bind" to the aluminum lens threads they are screwed in to, requiring the use of a filter wrench to get the filter off of the lens. Aluminum also dents or deforms more easily.

High quality filters are multi-coated, with multiple-layer optical coatings to reduce reflections. Uncoated filters can reflect up to 12% of the light, single-coated filter can reduce this considerably, and multi-coated filters can allow up to 99.8% of the light to pass through (0.2% unwanted reflection); the loss of light is not important, but part of the light is reflected inside the camera, producing flare and reducing the contrast of the image.

Filter sizes and mountings
Manufacturers of lenses and filters have standardized on several different sets of sizes over the years.

Threaded round filters
The most common standard filter sizes for circular filters include 30.5 mm, 35.5 mm, 37 mm, 39 mm, 40.5 mm, 43 mm, 46 mm, 49 mm, 52 mm, 55 mm, 58 mm, 62 mm, 67 mm, 72 mm, 77 mm, 82 mm, 86 mm, 95 mm, 105 mm, 112 mm 122 mm, 127 mm. The filter diameter has a steady increase from 43 to 58 mm every 3 mm and from 62 to 82 mm every 5 mm. Other filter sizes within this range may be hard to find since the filter size may be non-standard or may be rarely used on camera lenses. The specified diameter of the filter in millimeters indicates the diameter of the male threads on the filter housing. The thread pitch is 0.5 mm, 0.75 mm or 1.0 mm, depending on the ring size. A few sizes (e.g. 30.5 mm) come in more than one pitch.

The filter diameter for a particular lens is commonly identified on the lens face by the ⌀ symbol. For example, a lens marking may indicate: “⌀55 mm” or “55⌀” meaning it would accept a 55 mm filter or lens hood.

 * Table notes: Most often refers to 0.75 mm pitch thread, but an (incompatible) 1.0 mm pitch thread is sometimes used instead by some manufacturers.

Square filters
For square filters, 2" × 2", 3" × 3" and 4" × 4" were historically very common and are still made by some manufacturers. 100 mm × 100 mm is very close to 4" × 4", allowing use of many of the same holders, and is one of the more popular sizes currently (2006) in use; it is virtually a standard in the motion picture industry. 75 mm x 75 mm is very close to 3" × 3" and while less common today, was much in vogue in the 1990s.

The French manufacturer Cokin makes a wide range of filters and holders in three sizes which is collectively known as the Cokin System. "A" (amateur) size is 67 mm wide, “P” (professional) size is 84 mm wide, and “X Pro” is 130 mm wide. Many other manufacturers make filters to fit Cokin holders. Cokin also makes a filter holder for 100 mm filters, which they call the “Z” size. Most of Cokin's filters are made of optical resins such as CR-39. A few round filter elements may be attached to the square/rectangular filter holders, usually polarizers and gradient filters which both need to be rotated and are more expensive to manufacture.

Cokin formerly (1980s through mid-1990s) had competition from Hoya's 'Hoyarex' system (75 mm x 75 mm filters mostly made from resin) and also a range made by Ambico, but both have withdrawn from the market. A small (84 mm) “system” range is still made (as of 2012) by Formatt Hitech. In general, square (and sometimes rectangular) filters from one system could be used in another system's holders if the size was correct, but each made a different system of filter holder which could not be used together. Lee, Tiffen, Formatt Hitech and Singh Ray also make square / rectangular filters in the 100 × 100 and Cokin “P” sizes.

Gel filters are very common in square form, rarely being used in circular form. These are thin flexible sheets of gelatin or plastic which must be held in rigid frames to prevent them from sagging. Gels are made not only for use as photo filters, but also in a wide range of colors for use in lighting applications, particularly for theatrical lighting. Gel holders are available from all of the square “system” makers, but are additionally provided by many camera manufacturers, by manufacturers of gel filters, and by makers of expensive professional camera accessories (particularly those manufacturers which target the movie and television camera markets.

Square filter systems often have lens shades available to attach to the filter holders.

Rectangular filters
Graduated filters of a given width (67 mm, 84 mm, 100 mm, etc.) are often made oblong, rather than square, in order to allow the position of the gradation to be moved up or down in the picture. This allows, for example, the red part of a sunset filter to be placed at the horizon. These are used with the "system" holders described above.

Bayonet round filters
Certain manufacturers, most notably Rollei and Hasselblad, have created their own systems of bayonet mount for filters. Each design comes in several sizes, such as Bay I through Bay VIII for Rollei, and Bay 50 through Bay 104 for Hasselblad.

Series filters
Starting in the 1930s, filters were also made in a sizing system known as a series mount. The filters themselves were round pieces of glass (or occasionally other materials) with no threads. Very early filters had no rims around the glass, but the more common later production filters had the glass mounted in metal rims. To mount the filters on a camera, the filter was placed between two rings; the mount ring either screwed into the lens threads or was slipped over the lens barrel and the retaining ring screws into the mounting ring to hold the filter in place. The series designations are generally written as Roman numerals, I to IX, though there are a few sizes not written that way, such as Series 4.5 and Series 5.5. Most Series filter sizes are now obsolete, production having ceased by the late 1970s. However, Series 9 became a standard of the motion picture industry and Series 9 filters are still produced and sold today, particularly for professional motion picture cinematography.

title: Photographic filter


text: User talk:216.113.168.128

title: User talk:216.113.168.128


text:
List of Magic: The Gathering sets

The trading card game Magic: The Gathering has released a large number of sets since it was first published by Wizards of the Coast. After the 1993 release of Limited Edition, also known as Alpha and Beta, roughly 3-4 major sets have been released per year, in addition to various spin-off products.

Magic has made three types of sets since Alpha and Beta: base/core sets, expansion sets, and compilation sets. Expansion sets are the most numerous and prevalent type of expansion; they primarily consist of new cards, with few or no reprints, and either explore a new setting, or advance the plot in an existing setting. Base sets, later renamed core sets, are the successors to the original Limited Edition and are meant to provide a baseline Magic experience; they tended to consist either largely or entirely of reprints. Compilation sets also exist entirely of reprints, and tend to be made as either a special themed product, or as a way to increase supply of cards with small printings. Examples of compilation sets with randomized boosters include Chronicles and Modern Masters. There also exist compilation products with a pre-selected and fixed card pool, such as the Duel Decks and From The Vault series. Theme decks serve a similar function; however, they are always attached to a specific set or block, while compilations are free to pick and choose cards from any set.

All expansion sets, and all editions of the base set from Sixth Edition onward, are identified by an expansion symbol printed on the right side of cards, below the art and above the text box. From Exodus onward, the expansion symbols are also color-coded to denote rarity: black for common and basic land cards, silver for uncommon, and gold for rare. Beginning with the Shards of Alara set, a red-orange expansion symbol denotes a new rarity: "Mythic Rare" (the Time Spiral set featured an additional purple coloration for "timeshifted" cards ). For the early expansion sets (from Arabian Nights to Alliances), the rarities of cards were often much more complicated than the breakdown into common, uncommon, and rare suggests. Cards in compilations are assigned partially arbitrary rarity by Wizards, with some cards assigned rare status and some assigned mythic rare in a given set.

Base/core set editions
After the second version (Beta) of the first set, which contained two cards mistakenly excluded from the first version (Alpha), all subsequent base sets through 10th Edition consisted of cards that had been printed before in either the original base set or an expansion set. Alpha through Fifth Edition did not have set symbols printed on the actual cards, though those sets were retroactively given set symbols in Wizards of the Coast's official Gatherer database of Magic cards.

Expansion sets
Expansion sets from Ice Age to Rivals of Ixalan (with the exception of Homelands) came in groups called "blocks". Blocks were cohesive products: they usually centered around one plane, followed a particular storyline, and contained cards and mechanics that supported both. Blocks generally consisted of one large "stand-alone" expansion set of 250-380 cards, followed by one or two small expansion sets of 141-200 cards which continue the themes introduced in the large set. Like the base set, stand-alone expansion sets contain basic land cards; other expansion sets do not. Beginning with Alliances, expansion sets were given codenames while in development; the code names of the expansions of a block usually fit together to form a phrase or common theme. Ice Age, Homelands, and Alliances were retroactively declared a block at some point, despite Homelands not being connected to the other two in any way. In 2006, WotC retroactively dropped Homelands from the Ice Age cycle and added Coldsnap to it. With the Zendikar cycle in 2009, the traditional large-small-small block structure began to be varied, with some blocks including a second large set later in the cycle. Starting with the Battle for Zendikar block in 2015, the default structure of a block was changed to large-small, with two blocks released per year and each block consisting of only two sets.

Ice Age and Alliances were the first two sets to have a well-defined relationship, but the idea of calling connected sets a "block" or "cycle" did not exist at the time of printing. Also beginning with Alliances in June 1996, expansion sets were released in a regular pattern: the base sets were released in October with the small expansion sets being released in February and June. With the exceptions of Stronghold, a 1998 set released in March rather than February, and Scourge, a 2003 set which was released in May rather than June, this pattern of months was never broken, over a 10-year period, until 2006, when Dissension was also released a month early in May instead of June, because of the July release of Coldsnap. The third set in a block has since been released in late April or early May. From 2005-2015, there was a fourth release date each year in mid-July, usually reserved for base sets. Other summer releases included Coldsnap and Eventide.

Fallen Empires was an experimental expansion in which most cards have three or four different pieces of artwork. You could see them as 121 common cards, by art, or 36 cards by the text. It was also a major expansion in the idea of tribes, especially Goblins and Merfolk.

Most early expansion sets did not have exact release dates; they were just shipped out within the space of a week, and retailers could start selling them as soon as the sets were received. By the time of Alliances in 1996, however, release dates were set as Mondays (the earliest set with an exact Monday release date might possibly have preceded Alliances, but Alliances is the earliest set with a cited and confirmed Monday release date). Beginning with Mirrodin in 2003, the release dates were changed from Monday to Friday. All sets beginning with Homelands also have a pre-release date, on which cards are sold in limited quantities in pre-release tournaments. These tournaments were formerly always held two weeks before the release date, but since Shards of Alara they are now held one week before the release date.

Premium cards have been inserted into booster packs since Urza's Legacy. Originally 1 premium card was inserted for every 100 cards. The ratio was changed to 1 in 70 cards with the Torment expansion. Beginning with Tenth Edition the rate was increased to 1 in 56 cards. This later changed to 1 in 45 cards with "Core Set 2020"

Starting with Battle for Zendikar cycle, sets sometimes also contain an entry in the Masterpiece Series.

The block model has evolved as time went on. In addition to a formalized structure (which was occasionally varied) Wizards began to have trouble developing small sets that satisfied their own quality standards. Players also reported fatigue at playing in the same environment for a year at a time. The decision to remove one small set from each block, as showcased in Battle For Zendikar block, was a result of this dissatisfaction. It culminated in the decision to delete small sets entirely; since the conclusion of Ixalan cycle, all sets have been large-sized sets. However, not all large-size sets will involve travel to a new plane; some will be sequels to the set prior to it, if the depth of the plane's story and mechanics allows. Dominaria, released in 2018, was the first set under this model.

Non-rotation sets
These sets are legal in non-rotating formats such as Modern or Legacy, but not rotating formats such as Standard.

They are notably not legal in Pioneer.

Introductory sets
These introductory sets were intended for novice Magic: The Gathering players. They were illegal in sanctioned tournaments until October 2005, when they became legal in Legacy and Vintage.

Compilations/reprint sets
Reprint sets are sets of certain cards from previous sets that were re-released for different reasons. Some reasons include the cards were fan favorites and popular demand brought them back or in some cases, reprints were to commemorate certain events such as widely known matches or anniversary sets. Some reprint sets revolved around a certain theme; for example, Beatdown was themed around old, out-of-print, heavy-hitting creatures. Reprinting a card in one of these sets does not affect when it leaves Standard.

Deck Builder's Toolkits are released at the same time as a core set and contain only cards from sets that are legal in Standard at that time; they are not sets as such. These boxed sets therefore have no symbol or code of their own.

Masterpiece Series
Starting with the Kaladesh block, some sets include the Masterpiece Series. Wizards of the coast has stated "the Masterpiece Series... began with Zendikar Expeditions". They were retroactively added with the announcement of Kaladesh Inventions. Cards in the Masterpiece Series appear at a higher rarity than Mythic Rares, and consist of either reprints, or cards from the set whose packs they appear in. However, they are not considered part of that set, and instead get their own expansion symbol; moreover, as with reprint sets (see below), printing in a Masterpiece Series entry does not affect format legality. Note that entries in the Masterpiece Series do not have expansion codes, except for Zendikar Expeditions, which has code "EXP".

The Guilds of Ravnica Mythic Edition is a package that is sold exclusively on Hasbro's website. It contains 24 Guilds of Ravnica packs, 8 of which contain a predetermined Masterpiece card.

On January 10, 2019, the Ravnica Allegiance Mythic Edition was announced. Unlike the Guilds of Ravnica version, the Ravnica Allegiance Mythic Edition was sold on eBay and shipped globally. It contains 24 Ravnica Allegiance packs, 8 of which contain a predetermined Masterpiece card.

The set codes listed below come from the 3-letter code printed on the card frames at the bottom.

Collector Booster Packs
Starting with the Ravnica Allegiance expansion, collector packs started. Wizards of the Coast also had collector packs (premium packs) in Shards of Alara, but no sets after that until Ravnica Allegiance. Collector packs in Throne of Eldraine consist of five to six foil commons, three to four foil uncommons, three alternate art cards, one card from supplemental sets (from the Brawl deck series or planeswalker deck exclusive cards), one rare or mythic rare, one extended art rare or mythic rare, one foil rare or mythic rare, and a foil double faced token. Theros Beyond Death collector boosters consist of four to five foil commons, two to three foil uncommons, two full art foil basic lands, one card from supplemental sets (Theros Beyond Death planeswalker deck exclusive cards), one rare or mythic rare, one foil rare or mythic rare, two alternate art "Constellation" cards, and a foil double faced token.

Secret Lair
The Secret Lair Series is Wizard of the Coast's first full foray into selling single reprints directly to players.

The first Secret Lair series all consisted of alternate art reprints. Wizards of the Coast was trying to work with artists they usually didn't: street artists, comic book artists, album cover designers, etc. Alternately, they used traditional Magic artists working with very non-traditional art briefs. In some later series, original art was used in combination with alternate card frames.

With The Walking Dead series, the premise of only reprints with alternate art was abandoned. Mark Heggen revealed that R&D views the Secret Lair platform as a product-testing grounds platform that lets them try things they can't do in normal products. He acknowledged that it had been art up to 2020, but that they had broadened the concept to speak to audiences of different sizes. If they identify a small group that would be thrilled by a specific product, this could cater to them: "like the game of Magic the Secret Lair will always try new things and evolve - the first year focused on art which is the low hanging fruit" and "as we have new ideas and want to try new things to make the game joyful for more people, Secret Lair is the place to do that experimentation".

Even though the reaction among the fans was very negative, the Walking Dead was the best-selling drop, luring buyers from outside of the Magic world. This prompted the company to keep on experimenting in this realm and creating the Universes Beyond product line. "Universes Within" is the popular name given to cards that are functional reprints of Universes Beyond cards, made to fit within the lore of Magic: The Gathering.

Most cards are legal in the Vintage, Legacy and Commander formats.

Multiplayer-focused sets
Starting with Planechase in 2009, Wizards of the Coast has occasionally printed sets intended primarily for multiplayer play, which do not necessarily consist entirely of reprints but are not legal in Standard; a card printed in one of these is legal only in Eternal formats, and reprinting a card in one of these sets does not affect when it leaves Standard. These sets usually consist of fixed decks.

Non-DCI-sanctioned-tournament-play-legal sets
These sets, though also published by Wizards of the Coast, are not legal for DCI-sanctioned tournament play.

Magic: The Gathering Online exclusive sets
These sets are exclusive to Magic: The Gathering Online.

title: List of Magic: The Gathering sets


text:
Aix (bird)

Aix is a bird genus that contains two species of ducks: the wood duck (Aix sponsa), and the mandarin duck (Aix galericulata). Aix is an Ancient Greek word used by Aristotle to refer to an unknown diving bird.

Taxonomy
The genus belongs to the family Anatidae in the waterfowl order Anseriformes. They were formerly placed in the "perching ducks", a paraphyletic group somewhat intermediate between shelducks and dabbling ducks, and it is not quite clear whether they should be placed in the Anatinae (dabbling duck) or Tadorninae (shelduck) subfamily.

Habitat
Both species migrate from the northern parts of their respective ranges to winter in the south of the range. They inhabit quiet wooded streams and ponds.

Description
The two species are generally considered to be very attractive, particularly the multi-coloured drakes. The genus shows marked sexual dimorphism (differences between the sexes), with the females being smaller and less colorful.

Diet
Wood ducks will consume small crustaceans, insects, and plant matter. Mandarin ducks are mainly vegetarian.

Breeding
Wood ducks are reproductively capable around the age of one year. They are monogamous for the season. Mating occurs between February and April, depending on latitude. The clutch size is between 6 and 15, and the incubation period is about 30 days. The young are precocial. They venture from the cavity nest at one day old and are cared for by the mother for about 60 days. The young have a very high mortality rate. Wood ducks normally live 3 to 4 years.

Mandarin ducks are also monogamous. The courtship ritual, like the plumage, is rather showy. The female lays between 9 and 12 eggs in a cavity nest, then incubates them for about 30 days. Parental care by the mother is a little shorter in this species, lasting about 40 days.

Conservation
Both species are affected by loss of habitat. As human development continues to expand, the woodland areas preferred by these ducks continues to shrink. As of 2016, both species had been evaluated for the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and given a "least concern" rating.

title: Aix (bird)


text:
15th Golden Raspberry Awards

The 15th Golden Raspberry Awards were held on March 26, 1995, at the El Rey Hotel in Los Angeles, California, to recognize the worst the movie industry had to offer in 1994. Erotic thriller Color of Night became the first (and so far only) Golden Raspberry Worst Picture "winner" to not receive a single other Razzie (out of eight other nominations). Thumbelina became the first animated film to be nominated for and win a Razzie, which it received for Worst Original Song. The Specialist, Wyatt Earp, The Flintstones and Naked Gun $33 1/3$: The Final Insult each took home two awards, even though the latter two were not nominated for Worst Picture.

Awards and nominations
{{Legend|#B0C4DE|Winner (in bold)}}

Films with multiple nominations
These films received multiple nominations:

Criticism
In later years, the nomination for Jim Carrey in the Worst New Star category has been heavily criticized.

title: 15th Golden Raspberry Awards


text:
Elaeagnus umbellata

Elaeagnus umbellata is known as Japanese silverberry, umbellata oleaster, autumn olive, autumn elaeagnus, spreading oleaster, autumnberry, or autumn berry. The species is indigenous to eastern Asia and ranges from the Himalayas eastwards to Japan. It is a hardy, aggressive invasive species able to readily colonize barren land, becoming a troublesome plant in the central and northeastern United States and Europe.

Description
Elaeagnus umbellata grows as a deciduous shrub or small tree, typically up to 3.5 m tall, with a dense crown. It commonly bears sharp thorns in the form of spur branches. Flowers are fragrant, occur in clusters of white to yellow, are 8–9 mm in length and 7 mm in diameter, and have four lobes.

The leaves are alternate, 4–10 cm long and 2–4 cm wide, with wavy margins. The leaves are covered with minute silvery scales when they emerge early in the spring but turn greener above as the scales wear off during the summer. The underside is more intensely covered in the silvery scales, differing from the related E. angustifolia, which remains silvery until it sheds its leaves in the fall.

Flowers
The flowers are borne in the leaf axils in clusters of 1–7. They are pale yellowish-white, fragrant, (often heavily fragrant) and have a four-lobed corolla 1 cm long. They are an important source of nectar for pollinators such as bees.

Fruit
The fruit is a small round drupe 1/4 to 1/3 inches (0.65 to 0.85 cm) in diameter. The unripe fruit is silvery-scaled and yellow. It ripens to red, dotted with silver or brown. The ripe fruits are pulpy, juicy and sweet, 3–9 mm in length, 5 mm in diameter, and average 137 milligrams in weight, with a thin skin covering the whole fruit. Having a sweet and tart flavor, the berries can be eaten fresh or processed for jam, condiments, flavoring, or used as a substitute for tomato. When mature, the red berries contain carotenoids, including considerable amounts of lycopene.

Naturalization
In its origin regions of tropical and temperate Asia, E. umbellata is not considered to be an invasive species, but in many world regions, it has become invasive across wild and cultivated areas, particularly in the eastern United States. In the early 19th century, E. umbellata was purposely introduced to the United States and the United Kingdom for shelter belts, erosion control, wasteland reclamation, wildlife habitat, and for gardens as an ornamental. By the late 20th century, the shrub became a noxious weed and invasive species in many US states from the east coast to the central prairies, and spread widely across Europe.

Due to its substantial seed production and avid germination potential, E. umbellata rapidly invades new areas where it can resprout readily after burning or cutting. Because E. umbellata stands are habitats for wildlife, such as providing forage and shelter for deer, nesting sites for birds, and berries as food for several species, it has been planted for wildlife management in parts of the United States.

In Europe, E. umbellata has spread to the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, and Italy, but has been cultivated in the Netherlands and Scotland. In some parts of North America where it has become naturalized, E. umbellata is considered a noxious weed, particularly in the central and northeastern United States. In Canada, it is a "prohibited noxious weed" under the Alberta Weed Control Act 2010.

Because it fixes atmospheric nitrogen in its roots, E. umbellata may grow vigorously and sometimes competitively in infertile soils. It can increase available nitrogen in soils and benefit some nearby plants, and when grown in orchards, it can increase yields of adjacent fruit trees up to 10%. However, its ability to change soil chemistry can severely alter or destroy native plant communities.

title: Elaeagnus umbellata


text:
Talk:List of people from Seattle

Untitled
Who's the guy in REM? Mike Mills? I think he co-owns the Crocodile. heidimo 04:32, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * It's Peter Buck. Does he actually live in town? Add him if he does. -- Scarequotes 21:01, Mar 6, 2004 (UTC)

Bill Gates is not a Seattleite. He's on the eastside. heidimo 02:17, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * According to his Wikipedia entry, he was born in Seattle, so he should count. Perhaps we should separate the page further into people born in Seattle vs. people who moved there? Or is that too complicated? -- Scarequotes 19:38, Mar 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Tom Robbins lives in LaConner--was he from Seattle?  I guess it's a list of famous people who were born in Seattle, or lived there at some time?  Then I guess we should add Courtney Love.  heidimo  23:47, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

___ Included in 'moved to Seattle' Dead is Betty MacDonald author of the very funny book and huge bestseller "The egg and I" which told of her life on a chicken ranch in the late 1920'. She became hugely famous from this book which introduced the characters 'Ma and Pa Kettle'. She lived in Seattle on and off for many years before moving to Vashon island in the Puget sound. Betty was a very funny author and wrote two more autobiographical books and several children's books before dying in Seattle in 1958. She is greatly missed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.132.240.1 (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2004 (UTC)

Just added Theodore Roethke. What about Richard Hugo? Did he ever live in Seattle itself? He taught at the UW, worked at Boeing, and was born in White Center... -- Scarequotes 20:32, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Seattleite vs. Seattlite
So far as I can tell from m-w.com, Google, and a couple of other dictionaries, Seattleite (with an e) is the correct and more common spelling. But if there's an argument to be made for using Seattlite (that is, no e), I'd like to hear it. -- Scarequotes 06:21, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetizing
It would be easier to find someone if the lists were alphabetized. If someone's up to it... --Acid Ammo 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Seattleites
This section doesn't list fictional Seattleites it just shows various movies and programs that take place in Seattle. Someone please change the list of think of a better title. --AirLiner 22:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Renamed, though I'm still not sure this section belongs in the article. CAVincent (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment
A page similar to this one. List of people from San Francisco, is currently under review as an article for deletion, for reasons which would apply to this article as well. I am conducting an RfC on the talk page of the above-mentioned list to determine whether the concensus agrees on keeping such lists or not. Any and all comments are more than welcome. Badbilltucker 16:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A more appropriate name for this list would be "People associated with Seattle". Many of these people live in the suburbs and have never lived in Seattle itself. Is this acceptable? NRS11 01:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"From Seattle"
I just pruned the "born in Seattle" section and edited the intro to clarify that this list is intended to include only people from within Seattle city limits. If we want a list of people from the metro area, we should either start a new list or rename this one. Thoughts? (I could also see ditching this list and using categories, frankly, so if someone wants to do that I'd probably be on board as well.) -- Scarequotes 16:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Born in Seattle" pruned again, and some non-notables deleted. CAVincent 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

History of the word vs. List
I came here looking for the history of the word "Seattleite", but I got a short definition and a list of names. However...I couldn't find any articles on the word through a search (excepting urbandictionary.com), so I'm throwing this out there. One thing urban dictionary brought up was the stereotype of a seattleite (rain, coffee, "hippness"), which may be interesting. - malisa (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Dead"?
"Dead" should be changed to "Deceased". This is an encyclopedia after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.86.114 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion - Notability
I've been applying a rule that people included on this page be at least notable enough to have a wikipedia article, and keeping this rule pretty fast. Does anyone seriously object to this? I ask because an anon editor has started edit warring with me to include some individuals who lack their own articles (although in fairness may in fact be notable enough to have articles if someone got around to creating them - I don't know enough to judge). I'm curious what others think, so I'll stop reverting at least for a period. CAVincent (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

The little buddha
The movie, "The Little Buddha" takes place in Seattle, and should be included in the fictional Seattle section. 71.231.178.207 (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)a random poster

title: Talk:List of people from Seattle


text:
Talk:Soft gamma repeater

More examples?
The third para talks about observations of the first SGB. The next para seems to suggest that others would need to be known, in order to fill "soft gamma repeaters". Does anyone have other examples that might be mentioned? Neat article BTW. Maury 21:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Soft gamma repeater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090311072756/http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast20may98_1.htm to http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast20may98_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130517180957/http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html to http://solomon.as.utexas.edu/~duncan/magnetar.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20110720014214/http://fits.nrao.edu/pr/1998/magnetar/background/ to http://fits.nrao.edu/pr/1998/magnetar/background/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6JFHS0fjt?url=http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/magnetar/All_magnetars.htm to http://hera.ph1.uni-koeln.de/~heintzma/magnetar/All_magnetars.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:SGR 0525−66 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Soft gamma repeater


text:
Talk:Pope Nicholas V

When did the papal schism end really?
No, this page has since been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm talk (talk • contribs) 23:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This page has this pope put an end to the papal schism, but the page it refers to says it was ended decades earlier. Was this some second papal schism? Martijn Faassen 21:41, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Second sentence, second paragraph
Sentence corrected and clarified on July 28, 2011.

I cannot make an understanding of this, "His father died... etc.", so have desisted from any editing. It appears to be two (perhaps more) seperate sentences clumsily merged into one. It awaits someone with more patience and skill than me.LessHeard vanU 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention in Dante's Inferno?
I found this page after seeing Pope Nicholas V mentioned in the preface to a passage from Date's Inferno, though I can't actually find the mention in the poem's text itself (haven't read it closely yet). Could be a typo? Since there are footnotes describing references to Nicholas III. Warrants a further look, at the least. [] Yuletide (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri died in 1321. Nicholas V was born in 1397. They were not contemporaries. Pope Nicholas III however does appear in Malebolge and was waiting for the arrival of companions in the persons of Pope Boniface VIII and Pope Clement V. You might have mistaken Nicholas V for either of the three. Dimadick (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Papal style boxes
There were two infoboxes using the Template:Infobox pope styles with the only difference being different pictures for the two. I have surrounded the old with comment tags so it is still there if the need arises. I cannot see why there would be two seemingly contradicting pictures, however if someone else knows better which one should actually belong please correct me. Thanks, Adwiii  Talk  01:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Paus Nicolaas V door Peter Paul Rubens.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Paus Nicolaas V door Peter Paul Rubens.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 30, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-06-30. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutral?
Paragraphs 5-10 of the biography are almost adulatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egospoon (talk • contribs) 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, to me at least, the most inportant parts of this mans rule are these few paragraphs found in his biography, and some of them require some answers!;

"But the works on which Nicholas V especially set his heart were the rebuilding of the Vatican, the Borgo district, and St Peter's Basilica, where the reborn glories of the papacy were to be focused. He got as far as pulling down part of the ancient basilica, made some alterations to the Lateran Palace (of which some frescos by Fra Angelico bear witness), and laid up 2,522 cartloads of marble from the dilapidated Colosseum for use in the later constructions."

So, just what parts of the "ancient basilica" were pulled down?

"Under the generous patronage of Nicholas V, humanism made rapid strides as well. The new humanist learning had been hitherto looked on with suspicion in Rome, a possible source of schism and heresy from an unhealthy interest in paganism. For Nicholas V, humanism became a tool for the cultural aggrandizement of the Christian capital, and he sent emissaries to the East to attract Greek scholars after the fall of Constantinople.[7] The pope also employed Lorenzo Valla to translate Greek histories,[8] pagan as well as Christian, into Latin. This industry, coming just before the dawn of printing, contributed enormously to the sudden expansion of the intellectual horizon."

'''So just whom was Lorenzo Valla? How does he compare to other translators of the era? And the arrival of printing means a great deal!'''

"Nicholas V, with assistance from Enoch of Ascoli and Giovanni Tortelli, founded a library of nine thousand volumes, including manuscripts rescued from the Turks after the fall of Constantinople. The Pope himself was a man of vast erudition, and his friend Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, said of him that "what he does not know is outside the range of human knowledge."

So, does anyone know just how many of these "nine thosand volums" reamain to be seen?

Perhaps there exist no real answers to my questions?''' 96.19.159.196 (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Ronald L.Hughes
 * I'm sure there are, but they would initially be found, if anywhere, in other articles on these subjects. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Birth Date
Why is birth date given as 11-13-1397? Other sources give it as 11-15-1397 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11058a.htm https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nicholas-V-pope Thisdaytrivia (talk) 06:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pope Nicholas V. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728080300/http://www.synodne.org/article.php/20070507103958523/print to http://www.synodne.org/article.php/20070507103958523/print

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Pope Nicholas V as depicted in the Nuremberg Chronicle
I think it is worthy to note that the illustrators of the Nuremberg Chronicle did not avoid reusing a woodcut of a king or a pope for several different prints of kings or popes that they were not particularly familiar with. Therefore I think that the picture of Pope Nicholas V from the Chronicle used in the article is unhelpful. In fact, this picture was clearly produced with the same woodcut as that of Pope Stephen on page 120v of the Chronicle and of Pope John II on page 144v, just with a slight colour change. As this picture was clearly not intended to be a meaningful interpretation of what Pope Nicholas V looked like or how he was historically perceived, it is misleading to have it in the article.
 * Hi. Two things. First, no one is contending that this is actually how Pope Nicholas looked. Secondly, despite woodcuts being reused, we at Wikipedia use the Nuremberg Chronicle as illustrations on other pages. It is perfectly fine to have this depiction here. I hope you understand. Thank you SleeplessNight12 (talk) 06:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Per "no one is contending that this is actually how Pope Nicholas looked", I don't think that's correct, the basic assumption is probably that illustrations like these has priorities besides how things actually looked. Also, the presence of illustrations from the Nuremberg Chronicle in other WP-articles neither supports or oppose such an illustration in this article, see WP:OSE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

 * Sir, I am at loss here. Every depiction of every single pope before the middle ages were made centuries afterwordsSleeplessNight12 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Nicholas V


text:
User talk:JimD

Hi JimD, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Since you're no stranger to the wiki phenomenon, I'll dispense with the standard barrage of tutorial links (it's all covered under that welcome link anyway); I'm sure you're already quite at home. :)

Nice work with the playdium and lodgepole pine resurrections! I hope you decide to stay with us for some time to come. Cheers, -- Hadal 04:34, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, yes.. even users get their own talk pages. :) The convention is to append new comments at the end of such pages, unless otherwise instructed to by the user concerned.

 * Also, you can easily sign your name by typing three or four tildes after your text; will display just your username, whilst ~ will display both your username and the date and time of the edit. If you've any more questions, you need only to ask. :) -- Hadal 10:51, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jim, excellent work at the Reference Desk! Thanks for your responses there -- many days there are only a handful of us checking in over there, and we often don't have the expertise necessary, so I'm always glad to see someone new dropping by! Hope you're enjoying it here, and that you stick around, Jwrosenzweig 21:15, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've noticed you've made many great contributions, but one thing puzzles me. You've marked the vast majority of your edits as minor (including every single article edit since 4/22), even though a number of them (I haven't done a thorough search, so I don't know how many), are actually fairly substantial, such as Role-playing game and List of idioms in the English language. Both seem quite far from minor as defined at Minor_edit. As a comparison, your Dorothy Parker and Leap year edits are excellent examples of minor edits (helpful improvements without really changing the content). There is, of course a gray area; this edit by another user to Father Damien on it's face isn't minor per the guideline, but, since it is really just clarifying that Hawaii was a kingdom at the time, not yet the state, marking it minor is probably OK, even tho' not everyone would. Anyway, that's my two cents--happy editting. Niteowlneils 19:25, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

DESQview
Hi, as you probably noticed, another user just merged the article you wrote earlier this month, DESQView, with one I wrote last fall, DESQview. I assure you: it happens to us all, and is entirely due to the fact that the Wiki system does not have its own search engine (actually it does, only it has been disabled for ages for performance reasons. I've used it during short periods when it has been available and it makes all the difference.) -- Viajero 09:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikicode
I just noticed the WikiCode stuff and really like the idea. I hope to review the dynamically generated list of articles containing wikicode and write python implementations of each of them to post on my sysadmoin Wiki/MoinMoin pages. I'll also scour the rest of Wikipedia to find other articles about algorithms (like the one on the Luhn algorithm that I already modified) and add wikicode examples to each of them.

(I should learn quite a bit from both of these exercises as my core CS background is pretty weak despite my experience in scripting and programming)

 * Pity that this was apparently removed from the Wikipedia standards track and has been relegated to a historical note on Derek Coetzee's talk page.JimD 00:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Linux Kernel event?
Is it on tonight? I haven't seen anything on the mailing lists... -- Prove It (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your Edit to Duck Typing
It is messy (your edit in the middle of the criticism doesn't 'flow'). Could you tidy it up?

Thanks --Paddy (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pin the Tail on the Donkey
I have nominated Pin the Tail on the Donkey, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --SeinHenker (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I created it specifically to explain a common cultural reference and the resulting idiom. It's of similar significance to other childhood games such as Tag (game), Kick the Can, Dodgeball and Hide and Seek. Practically every American knows these games and would understand references to them (and many of them date back to England and have their counterparts in other cultures).  Including them in Wikipedia makes these cultural references accessible to a broader audience and encourages comparison to the analogous (sometimes historically related) games from other cultures.  I don't have any strong opinion on whether this article should be deleted, but I do recall looking for similar content (such as the other games I listed) and basing my decision to create it on their existence.  The point is, of course, now moot as the vote as clearly favored keeping it. JimD (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 * The debate was closed as speedy keep. SeinHenker appears to be from Austria, and didn't have the common courtesy to do a simple google search. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:About/Subpage
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:About/Subpage, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia talk:About/Subpage is a test page. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia talk:About/Subpage, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joseph Dennis (mathematician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gainesville (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Carmelo Zito
Hello, JimD. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Carmelo Zito, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wgolf (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OrlyAtomics logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:OrlyAtomics logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SPOJ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Erlang. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:JimD


text:
Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford

African Americans
This article needs to be re-written without the term "African Americans". The legal discussion in question specifically states that people of African origin cannot be or become Americans, so this modern term for Americans of recent African descent with African physical features is contradictory to the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.122.29 (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"American" doesn't necessarily mean "American citizen". Prior to 1775-1788, there was no country called "the United States of America" and thus no American citizens, but there were plenty of Americans. In general if someone was born in Country X and has lived there his entire life, the default presumption is that he is an X-ite, independent of legal status. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 12:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I thoroughly agree with the IP's comments and after 9 months with no dissenting comments have edited the lede to use the language used in the Supreme Court at the time.
 * This change to less politically correct and confusing language also has the bonus of being more intelligible to the plurality of English language users outside of the US that do not suffer the logic-twisting exigencies of US fashion. (My Ugandan friends who had to jump through hoops to obtain a visa to visit the US are always appalled to be termed "African Americans" - rather than Kenyans, Africans or blacks - when they have finally passed the ordeal of US Homeland Security interrogations and searches and emerge blinking to try and find a cab.) BushelCandle (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandform or sanford?
The article uses these lastnames interchangeably. Clarification is needed. Giorgi Eufshi (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I assume you meant to write "Sandford" (not "Sandform"). This issue is mentioned in footnote #1:  While the name of the Supreme Court case is Scott vs. Sandford, the respondent's surname was actually "Sanford". A clerk misspelled the name, and the court never corrected the error.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"No rights which the white man was bound to respect"
I have a feeling that the section "Opinion of the Court" is a bit too long and contains too many and too long quotations. Still, I found it necessary to add one more quotation, i.e. "no rights which the white man was bound to respect" and context. These words are given by Frederick Douglass as the essence of the ruling in his "Life and Times" (p. 298 of the online edition at Docsouth, https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/douglasslife/douglass.html#douglass298). They are also alluded to by Harriet Jacobs (p. 281 of the online edition at Docsouth, https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/jacobs/jacobs.html#jac281) in a way that makes it clear that they were common knowledge among abolitionists in the late 1850s. So I conclude that these words are pretty important (and also pretty shocking). Rsk6400 (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

 * I'd also like to chime in that this quote is by far the most famous from the court's opinion, and is frequently cited in histories of the era. It's not only shocking to current sensibilities, but was considered dynamite even at the time, when African Americans outside the south did in fact have rights that they expected white men (and the law) to respect. The entire passage doesn't necessarily need to be in the article, but this sentence does; in fact, I'd think it belonged in the lede. --Jfruh (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The two quotations in the current section on the opinion (the two I added) are those that are quoted from in the major legal treatises (Chemerinsky and Nowak). I normally put a "quoted in" citation but didn't here, though I can add them if it would help.  White Whirlwind  咨   23:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Which parts of the passage should be in the article ? Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the beginning (p.204), quotes the passage from "They had for more..." to "...bound to respect". I'd like to include also Taney's reference to the Constitution (because that's why the passage is important in his logic) and to the Declaration of Independence (because the passage in combination with the Declaration is evidence that in Taney's opinion "unalienable rights" had been "endowed" only to white "men" - while blacks might have rights granted to them by the legislature - and this question is extremely important even in today's discussions on the universality of Human rights).
 * I'd like to see also some reactions to the passage in the "Reaction" and the "Later references" sections. I'd also like to chime in that it belonged in the lede. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Free encyclopaedia
That it is free is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. You may only include small amounts of non-free text under very specific criteria. "I just like the look of this text" is not one of those criteria. At least three editors of this article don't understand that, or are pretending not to understand that because they enjoy reverting more than they enjoy creating a free encyclopaedia. Kapanar (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Three other editors—,, and I—reverted your change in succession. When that happens, continuing to try and implement it without gaining consensus is called "edit warring" (WP:EDITWARRING) and is not allowed on Wikipedia. I didn't notice your creation of this section—try just pinging us next time rather than continuing to edit war and/or place comments of questionable civility on our talk page(s).

 * Now, you seem to think that a quotation from a source is problematic. I'm not sure why you think this. You said in an edit summary that "it isn't a quote. If it were, the person who said it would be named inline, and it would be because it was crucial to report their exact words". But that would only apply to a spoken/written quote by a specific individual, not just to a quote of material from a particular source of information. The text you objected to was a snippet from a well-known monograph in the relevant literature that had particularly striking language that was used to illustrate a point, hence the exact quote. This is a common practice in English prose, and I am surprised that someone would find it objectionable. Your later edits mentioned "non-free text, not a quotation", which seems to be an amalgamated confusion of copyright infringement plus the issue I just described. Using brief verbatim quotations for specific effect with citations to their original source is an extremely common practice in English writing. It is unequivocally legal under the fair use doctrine of Anglo-American common law and U.S. statutory law—which are the only relevant laws to us here, since the English Wikipedia's servers are in the United States (WP:NFC). The quote in the lead may not have had an inline citation, but its full quote certainly has one in the body of the article, and Wikipedia's Manual of Style does not require inline cites for cited text in the body that is also used in the lead (MOS:LEADCITE). Instead of coming in guns blazing, try to stay calm, and remember that it is imperative here to assume good faith (WP:AGF) and be civil (WP:CIVIL).   White Whirlwind  咨   05:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first user reverted as a knee jerk reaction, clearly having not understood why the edit was necessary. The second and third users reverted just because the first user had. This is an exceptionally common occurrence on Wikipedia.
 * And as for the reason for the edit, I am amazed that you would have trouble with the concept. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia. Non-free content can only be used when there is no alternative. If you are describing what someone said or wrote, then clearly, there is no alternative to quoting from whatever source their words appeared in. Fair use applies and you can say person X said "exact words". But if you merely rather like the turn of phrase someone uses in their non-free work, it is obviously ludicrous to claim that there is no alternative to lifting their non-free text. Kapanar (talk) 19:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid you are quite wrong. First, the "free" in "Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia" refers to the fact that Wikipedia is free to access, not that it uses only free content. Jimmy Wales has said this explicitly in his statement preserved at "WP:Free encyclopedia". How anyone misunderstands that is beyond me. Moreover, this should be patently obvious to any rational reader who bothers to look at the policy page at WP:NFC and sees language like the Text subsection's: "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." Such language cannot square with such a narrow reading of "no free equivalent" (hint: much of the policy's language is aimed at image use). Second, it appears you did not carefully read WP:NFC or my explanation of fair use, or if you did you badly misunderstood them. There is not now, nor to my knowledge of U.S. copyright law has there ever been, a requirement that fair use be purely descriptive in nature. Read the policy and browse articles. Or go amuse yourself by reading Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music or Nimmer's treatise on copyright.  White Whirlwind  咨   06:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, that really is too funny. The word "Free" in "The Free Encyclopedia" refers first and foremost to the licensing terms of Wikipedia's content. Everyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that. Did you genuinely not know it, or are you pretending not to because you think you will "win" an argument by doing that? Kapanar (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you are wrong again. Do you see the "This is an essay" box at the top of that page you linked? That means it is merely a user's opinion, and has zero connection to any Wikipedia policy. You need to be aware of those boxes, because essays have no effect on us here. The box itself tells you that: "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community". If you decide to become a regular Wikipedia editor, you will need to  learn to read policies carefully and listen to the advice of other more experienced editors.   White Whirlwind   00:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Kapanar (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I won't warn you again about civility. Your reasoning is still illogical: WP:5P3 says that Wikipedia's content is freely available under the CC license. It does not say anything about what the "free" in "the free encyclopedia" refers to, but "WP:Free encyclopedia" does. If you cannot or will not comprehend that reasoning, I can't help you. But this is really irrelevant, because your original point regarding fair use was wrong anyway, for the reasons I've previously described—what the "free" in "the free encyclopedia" means has nothing to do with the substantive policies of WP:NFC. Plus, the whole business is academic now, since the original language has been changed for valid reasons this time. I hope you take these lessons to heart.  White Whirlwind   01:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Kapanar (talk) 18:47, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Removed PAs and struck comments from blocked SP. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see! Next time just give a heads-up on the situation in the edit summary if you can. And it doesn't surprise me that Kapanar was a sock puppet, he seems to either have a bizarre obsession with trolling or else just be mentally ill. Thanks for taking care of it.  White Whirlwind   02:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 October 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Nnadigoodluck  █ █ █  01:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Dred Scott v. Sandford → Dred Scott decision – Per WP:COMMONNAME. It may be an unusual way to refer to a court case but it is how this one is usually reffered to: Since someone might bring this up: most sources that use "v. Sandford" do so out of conformity with formal court case naming conventions, and the nature of these sources suggests this: Article titles are supposed to reflect common usage so we should not go off the above examples, but the first two I mentioned. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Google Ngrams:
 * Encyclopædia Brittanica:
 * Oyez:
 * Legal Information Institute:
 * American Bar Association:

 * Oppose per MOS:LAW. We use Bluebook formatting for U.S. legal case name titles. Legal sources typically use the case name, and legal sources should be given priority in an article about a legal case. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment This is a fair discussion to have. MOS:LAW doesn't dictate anything here, since it says "normally", not "always no matter what". Anyway, I doubt it could supersede WP:COMMONNAME in the event of a contradiction between the two. On a side note, there are plenty of cases that are famous enough to not follow the normal "Party v. Party" (e.g. The Slaughter-House Cases). Dred Scott isn't quite there in legal usage, but perhaps it is in general usage. I'd like to see a survey of major sources in addition to Ngrams.  White Whirlwind   05:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with survey of major sources. Someone else would probably be better suited to do this though, as I haven't written any legal articles and I don't know what is usually used to do so. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 11:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Legal sources should be given priority in articles about legal cases such as this. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Comment. In fact its commonest name would appear to be the Dred Scott case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Any evidence for this? mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 14:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly when I studied history at school and university it was always taught as the Dred Scott case. However, I'll give you the Ngram seems to give Dred Scott decision as the most common. Although Dred Scott case/Case certainly beats Dred Scott v. Sandford. I'll support either decision or case over the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it varies how it is taught and I have not (yet, still in HS) had any postsecondary education, but I would also take "case" over "v. Sandford". mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I dunno, it just feels... off. The Slaughter-House Cases... sure, that's the common name, alright, but it feels formal enough that actual Supreme Court decisions uses that name in citations. To me, though, this feels like the equivalent of moving "SpongeBob SquarePants" to "". It's a shorthand form that is used for abbreviation. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It is less formal, but I don't think it's used because it's shorter. All the other shortened case names I've heard don't add anything. Brown v. Board of Education --> Brown v. Board, for example. I think there's probably some story as to why it's often called "decision" as this is so unusual. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 17:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 * Oppose largely per Brainulator9 above. In addition, I would note that the Slaughter-House Cases referenced above are a unique case (I couldn't help myself) involving multiple cases (hence the name), which is likely why the shorthand name is used. -- Calidum  17:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose What! Um no. I don't get the argument, change because of precedent? WP:Ignore all rules plz see this, ignoring precedent is the only way to maintain the quality of this page. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Dred Scott v. Sandford