text:
Earlham College

Earlham College is a private liberal arts college in Richmond, Indiana. The college was established in 1847 by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and has a strong focus on Quaker values such as integrity, a commitment to peace and social justice, mutual respect, and community decision-making. It offers a Master of Arts in Teaching and has an affiliated graduate seminary, the Earlham School of Religion, which offers three master's degrees: Master of Divinity, Master of Ministry, and Master of Arts in Religion.

History
Earlham was founded in 1847 as the Friends Boarding School, a boarding high school for the religious education of Quaker adolescents. In 1859, Earlham became Earlham College, upon the addition of collegiate academics. At this time, Earlham was the third Quaker college in the United States (Haverford College was first, Guilford College the second), and the second U.S. institution of higher education to be coeducational (Oberlin College was first). Though the college initially admitted only students who belonged to the Religious Society of Friends, Earlham began admitting non-Quakers in 1865. The college was named for Earlham Hall, home of the Gurneys, an important English Quaker family.

Over time, as Quakerism in America became more progressive, Earlham's practices changed with them. The college has still remained faithful to its Quaker roots. 1960 marked the establishment of the Earlham School of Religion, then the only Friends seminary in the world.

In 2017, Earlham appointed Alan C. Price as its first African-American president. Price left the position in July 2018, and in November of that year was appointed director of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.

Campus
Earlham's 800 acre campus lies at the southwestern edge of Richmond, Indiana, a city of 36,812 (2010 census). The main quadrangle of the campus is called "the Heart". It is bordered by Earlham Hall (with the Runyan Center student union directly behind it), Olvey-Andis Hall, Lilly Library, Carpenter Hall, Landrum Bolling Center, the science buildings (Stanley Hall, Noyes Hall and Dennis Hall), Tyler Hall, Bundy Hall and Barrett Hall. Ninety-four percent of Earlham students live on campus in a variety of settings.

The campus has eight residence halls (Barrett Hall, Bundy Hall, Earlham Hall, Mills Hall, Hoerner Hall, Olvey-Andis Hall, Warren Hall and Wilson Hall). In addition, it has 15 theme and friendship houses, which border the North and East edges of the campus.

The school has embarked on major campus improvement projects which cost a combined $62.3 million. The science complex (Stanley and Noyes Halls) has undergone a complete renovation. Stanley Hall was completed by fall 2013 and received a LEED Silver certification. A new Center for Science and Technology, completed in 2015, obtained a LEED gold rating.

While Earlham is predominately an undergraduate institution, it also offers a Master of Arts in Teaching degree.

Curriculum and community
Earlham's most popular undergraduate majors, conferred in 2023 graduates, were:
 * Biochemistry (19)
 * Biology (10)
 * Business Administration and Management (14)
 * Neuroscience (10)
 * Psychology (14)

In keeping with Friends' belief in equality, everyone addresses each other at Earlham by his or her first name, without the use of titles such as "doctor" or "professor".

Roughly 70% of Earlham students go on a semester-length off-campus program to such destinations as Mexico, the U.S./ Mexican border, Vienna, Martinique, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand, Japan, and Tanzania.

In the sciences, Earlham places a large emphasis on integrating research into the undergraduate curriculum. Through Ford/Knight grants, most science faculty have been or are currently involved with students in research. Earlham has good representation in the Butler Undergraduate Research Conference, held each year in the spring. Earlham's biology and chemistry departments have a long history of producing distinguished graduates, such as Warder Clyde Allee, Jim Fowler, Larry E. Overman, Harold Urey, and Wendell Stanley, the latter two of which won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (in 1934 and 1946, respectively). Students and faculty in Earlham's CS applied groups jointly provide computer infrastructure support for the college.

The choir department organizes regional and national tours every year for its ensembles. In January 2012, the concert choir performed in Indianapolis, the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, and Chicago. The choral and instrumental music departments collaborate on a biennial basis, performing works such as Carmina Burana and Michael Tippett's A Child of Our Time. The college has a full gamelan ensemble, which performs concerts in the Spring. Earlham has an entirely student-managed public radio station, WECI 91.5FM. In addition, 6-10 theater performances occur throughout the year on campus through either the academic department, senior projects or the student company.

Earlham has students from 77 countries, which equates to roughly 200 students. This high diversity is due in part to a strong relationship with the United World College network of international boarding high schools. Since 2004, Earlham College has been a part of the Davis United World Scholars program, which offers need-based scholarships for UWC graduates to continue their education at select institutions in the United States. The Davis Cup, which is awarded to the college with the most current students from this program, has been awarded to Earlham several times. The college also draws from all regions of the United States, with students from 42 states. Domestic minorities represent 15% of the student body.

Earlham is orienting some of the curriculum around exploring local and global problems as well as possible solutions. In 2016, Earlham students won the million dollar Hult Prize for their "Magic Bus" proposal to help with transportation problems in developing urban environments.

Earlham has the United States' only equestrian program which is run entirely by students. Lessons are available for students of the college and community members. The equestrian center is adjacent to the college-owned 11-acre Miller farm which hosts agricultural interns during the school year and summer and "work days" on Saturdays for the rest of the community during the school year. Miller farm also serves as a residence for upper class students.

In keeping with Quaker tradition, Earlham students voluntarily invest many hours of community service into the Richmond community. Students report an average of 23,000 hours of volunteering work every year and Earlham's Bonner program offers financial aid in exchange for volunteering work for students with high financial need.

Athletics
Earlham competes in NCAA Division III and in the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference. The women's sports are basketball, cross country, field hockey, golf, indoor track, lacrosse, outdoor track, soccer, softball, tennis, and volleyball. The men's sports are baseball, basketball, cross country, golf, indoor track, lacrosse, outdoor track, soccer, and tennis. The football team was organized in 1888 and has been playing games since the 1889 season. As one of the earliest college programs, Earlham has competed against larger foes such as Indiana University, Purdue University, the University of Kentucky, Ball State University, and Butler University. Perhaps the Quakers' most notable football game was an exhibition game against Japan's Doshisha University Hamburgers in 1989. After setting an NCAA Division III record of five consecutive winless seasons, Earlham's football program was suspended starting with the 2019 season. In May 2020, the college announced suspension of men's and women's golf and tennis teams.

Earlham was an NAIA member in all sports until 19xx; they won the NAIA Men's Soccer National title in 1963. In the 2010–11 season, the Earlham College Men's Tennis team became the first squad in Earlham history to qualify for the NCAA Div. III Championships by winning the Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference Tournament title.

During the 2022 Baseball season, Earlham College legend Jeordon Kuderer hit the longest left handed home run in Quaker history. The ball was hit 518 feet down the right field line, wrapping around the foul poll and landing on top of an apartment building beyond the street. Many inside the school have considered commemorating that moment by placing a statue of Kuderer outside of Sadler Stadium. The Quakers would go on to finish the season as HCAC Champions and earn their second ever bid into the NCAA tournament.

Earlham's club teams include Ultimate Frisbee, Women's and Men's rugby, the Bike Co-Op, Cheerleaders, Earthquakers (Competitive Dance), Equestrian Program, martial arts groups, Men's Volleyball, and Outdoors Club. A $13-million Athletics and Wellness Center opened at the beginning of the Fall 1999 semester. Students are not charged to use the facility, which features an energy center for cardiovascular and strength training, a group fitness studio for aerobics and yoga, Weber Pool (25 meters by six lanes), racquetball courts, tennis courts, a running track, a climbing wall and Schuckman Court (a performance gymnasium with seating for 1,800). In 2007, Earlham opened its new 2,000-seat Darrell Beane Stadium, with a football field and running track.

Notable people

 * Elizabeth Burchenal
 * Ione Virginia Hill Cowles
 * Eva Feldman
 * Michael C. Hall
 * Margaret Hamilton
 * Mary Coffin Johnson
 * Mat Johnson
 * Simone Leigh
 * Dan McCoy
 * Esther Biddle Rhoads
 * Zitkala-Sa
 * Michael Shellenberger
 * Wendell Meredith Stanley
 * Ruth Hinshaw Spray
 * Peter Suber
 * Harold Urey
 * Stuart Wellington
 * Edwin Way Teale
 * Andrew Ginther

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

title: Earlham College


text:
Talk:Geek canon

Descriptions for examples
I've added some descriptions to FPS gaming items on the list. Anything on the list should be describing why such-and-such should/would be considered canon, so readers can get a feel for what makes something canon. It would be nice to get examples that describe the various reasons something can be considered, so we don't just repeat the same reasons for every item.

For example, I stated in one of my descriptions that being the first in a genre or causing a mod community to spring up were causes for a game to be considered canon, but this could be factored out to the main discussion.

I think the main discussion could be rewritten, as it rambles on a bit.

—Daelin, 2004–10–16, 09:26 EDT

 * I've tightened up the language a bit, and did some general clean-up. I might be tempted to place this on a list of VfD articles -- I really don't see what purpose it serves as is, but I will let others make that call. - Scooter 05:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A list?
If we're going to include a list, the article shouldn't try to list every item that could be within the canon. It should instead focus on either 1) items most any geek should at least be aware of/have exposure to, and/or 2) critical items for specialized topic geeks. e.g., I'd argue any geek should be aware of and have some knowledge of the details of, even if they've never read/played: Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland, the Jabberwocky poem, Dungeons and Dragons, and Doom. These are critical works in their genres, which shaped all following works, and are still redeemable today. Things get fuzzier when you get even as far as The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Do we include The Church of the Subgenius™?

On the other hand due to its nature, this list would be pretty damned boring if it didn't include more fringe stuff than not. Suggestions? --Daelin 00:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

I find that the style of this article is rather refreshing, but there is no mention or analysis of sources within the text or at the bottom of the article, with some exceptions like the paragraph on the Lensman series and a short mention of why Neuromancer is important. Without the sources this article and its talk page become a discussion between geeks or between geek observers, which is something very far from the nature of an encyclopedic entry. In other words, you have to state why a particular work gets into the canon. This article sometimes goes towards that but stops short. For instance, the Lensman series by "doc" Smith is mentioned. But why that particular series of books and not others? A good foundation is Levy's book Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (I am placing the ref at the bottom) which mentions the importance of that series in the 1950s at MIT, a traditional home of modern geekdom. Does an article in Wired on a particular item of geek canon mean that it should be included or is it the reverse since Wired is often very late in getting some things. This should probably get a mini-analysis. Is blog activity an arbiter of inclusion in the canon? Why? There are other categories of sources: Some elements of the geek canon might be too fluid to be in books, so then you count the Web sites and discuss this with other elements. Etc, etc. AlainV 06:46, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

 * I'm going to ramble on for a bit:
 * This is why I think it might be better to just not include a list at all, and to cite works as examples of what can be or is frequently thought of as canon. A work never "gets into the canon" because there is no authoritative list for it to be accepted on.  A work can be perceived as canon for numerous miscellaneous reasons, but most commonly that work (or works, or author) 1) Has had an obvious and direct influence on similar works (Asimov's three (four) laws of robotics) or 2) is extremely widely read, so that you can expect to hear references to the work in conversation.
 * The former is subject to an objective literary analysis, and geeks will try and trace the origins of ideas in their favorite authors' works. However, it has been my experience that geeks on the whole tend to reject the very-post-modern literary establishment's idea that every single idea has already been thought of and every work is, at best, innovative restyling of something someone already did.  The buck tends to stop at directly related ideas, with possible nods to precursor influential ideas.
 * The later (extremely widely read) isn't really a solid criteria. Some works can get widely read by geeks and nobody will reference it in conversation.  I've never read Lord of the Flies, and I've never heard any obvious reference to it, but apparently a lot of geeks I know have read it.  It may have an affect on the culture below the dialog, however.  I can't say.  1984, on the other hand, gets lots of reference, even by people who have never read it.  Also, everyone knows that Soylent Green is people.  Anyhow, this is where you can get a lot of debate, and a lot of real variation between communities.  For example, among FPS game geeks, you'd expect everyone to know about Daikatana, and possibly to have played the demo.  However, if you look at a differently oriented geek community, it might not be reasonable to expect that knowledge.
 * An authoritative source doesn't make a work canon. It's almost like science, where you don't need an authority to tell you that Euclid's Elements is canon to Mathematics.  Anyone can find out that work came early, was widely read for centuries, and had a tremendous impact.  You don't need a literary analysis by established critics to tell you that the ideas in it are fundamental, or that most branches of mathematics can directly trace their roots from study of that work.  However, in the objective geek canon the hereditary lines are rarely as top-down as in the case of Asimov.  Dreams of Electric Sheep became Blade Runner, but where else did it go, and which was more influential?  Star Trek is rife with similar examples--episodes based on a classic or not so classic SF short story.  Is the short story or the Trek episode "the real canon"?  It's debatable, and rather pointless to debate it.  Geeks will leave the equation right there, like an expression of two sine waves at different frequencies.  You can't simplify it further: This work was influential, and can directly trace its ideas to X and Y--literary critics will simplify it, authoritatively, and essentially declare pi to be 3 or 4, depending on the authority. (So they hold councils to avoid embarrassment, like the church, blah blah...)
 * So, perhaps the article should be rewritten. I used to Western Canon article as a basis, but it's apparent that they're not similar enough for that.  Perhaps the article should even be mostly deleted, as "geek canon" tends to be more of a meta canon that includes (depending on geek community): western canon, sf canon, hacker (trad. def) canon, gaming canon, etc.  The later two are also fluid, and peer defined rather than authoritatively defined, like I've tried to illustrate about geek canon.
 * --Daelin 03:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

What would geek interests be?
Would things like comic books, manga, and hobby games fall in to the geek canon? I would think fantasy is as popular among geeks as science-fiction is (LOTR, specifically)

Possible entries
Novels

 * Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 * Star Wars Expanded Universe

Video Games
 * Pong
 * Counter-Strike
 * Halo video game series
 * Doom
 * Ultima
 * Ultima Online
 * Everquest
 * Might & Magic
 * Dragon Quest
 * Final Fantasy
 * Starcraft
 * MUD, RPG, MMORPG, FPS, RTS, and other genres that have significantly impacted geekism

Movies
 * Akira
 * Ghost in the Shell
 * The Princess Bride

Television

 * Mystery Science Theater 3000
 * Transformers
 * Futurama (heavily based on geek references and in-jokes)
 * The Simpsons (geek references here as well)

Nonfiction

Magazines
 * Masters of Doom
 * Silicon Snakeoil by Cliff Stoll
 * Popular Science

Websites
 * Google
 * Ars Technica
 * Slashdot
 * Fark
 * Newgrounds
 * Anandtech
 * 4chan
 * Misc geek communities, blogs, messageboards, etc

Software
 * Linux
 * Windows
 * P2P
 * BitTorrent
 * IRC
 * Shockwave Flash
 * ASCII

More possible entries

 * Arthur C. Clarke: 2001 - The Space Odyssey
 * Monty Python (tv show + movies)
 * The C programming language
 * Anything written by Terry Pratchett

Some Revisions.
I did a somewhat substantial rewrite, although there's still more work needed. Some commentary on the reasoning behind it:

 * The article weirdly undercut itself early on. The fact that geek culture is (allegedly) anti-authoritarian does not change a whit about whether a factual list of commonly-referenced artistic works can be compiled.  It merely makes it difficult for there to be one all-knowing granter of that list, or for a list to be easily acknowledged as correct.  So I slimmed up the self-doubting comments to a disclaimer at the beginning.  Hopefully that will prove acceptable.
 * That said, after saying that the article is probably hopelessly subjective (which doesn't have to be true), it proceeds to make some very bold claims, like "The best description of what a "real world" work environment is "The Soul Of A New Machine" by Tracy Kidder." Let's be careful with that unless it's something truly accepted.
 * The word "articles," while correct, might introduce a bit of confusion between Wikipedia-articles and articles-articles. So I tried to use "works" as in "creative works" instead.
 * As for specific deletions, I see this not as a "neat underappreciated gems" article that mentions great art works that have been overlooked; these lists are really nice, mind, but extraordinarily hard to do objectively. Saying something is good authoritatively is hard; but saying something is important and influential is a little easier.
 * I removed Star Trek from the movie list because the first one wasn't exactly well-received, and it's already mentioned in television (which was probably more influential). It also seemed a bit clunky to add "parts of the Star Trek movie series" in the middle of the list, though that would be accurate.
 * Azumanga Daioh is surely a good show, but it hasn't achieved anywhere near the level of cultural saturation that Cowboy Bebop or Evangelion have.
 * I owned an Amiga myself, but I think that's a standard subculture, hardly Geek canon. Geeks are more than just computer-buffs, and Amiga-buffs were a subset of a subset.  If we do include it, it should probably go in some computing section, not quite "gadgets" (which would be more like ).
 * A possible deletion for later: Does The Bard's Tale II really count? I'm out of my league on some of the early computer gaming parts, but I don't recall the Bard's Tale really being mentioned in the same league as classics like Civilization.  The fact that the sequel is used seems even more suspicious...  but maybe I'm just totally off.  For all the self-congratulation about being in the present (which is less shocking when you consider that this subculture is basically only ~50 years old), the current list seems somewhat slanted towards 1975-1985.
 * Same with Alan Lee. I've never heard of him, and don't recall what little art there was to the versions of LOTR I read to be anything particularly special...  but maybe I read a different edition.  I'll assume that I'm just wrong on this count, but just registering this in case others who know better also think that Mr. Lee is more of a side figure.
 * I'm not entirely certain about the random FPS interlude within gaming. As part of the current whole, I'd say it's out of place with the level of detail, but it's possible that the article will grow in other places to make it seem not out of place.
 * Anything else to go in the RPG section that would be universally accepted? Shadowrun, despite being somewhat niche, can stay since it massively rips of Neuromancer which we already have listed as an important inspiration.  I was trying to come up with an appropriate "companion" to go with it for an "and" block between two other competitors to D&D, but the market thins a bit.  Call of Cthulu?  Mage: the Ascension?  Nothing else seemed to have both the popularity and cred required to go in a canon article, but maybe I'm forgetting something or selling it short. SnowFire 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi, I'm from Third Opinion, and this article was listed there three days ago. Has the argument cleared up or is my opinion still valueable? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )

Article Focus.
This article is mostly unsourced right now, which is fine for the frontiers of Wikipedia, except that makes it very tempting to add in your own ideas and favorites. I think that there is something valid to have an article here for- someone referencing Lord of the Rings or quoting The Princess Bride will definitely be immediately understood, and a list of the works that do that is reasonable. That said, to be canon there is an extremely high standard that must be reached. It either must be incredibly popular, or else was so foundational that everything afterward to some extent incorporated it. We're talking stuff on the level of Star Trek here.

I mention this because I recently reverted the second addition of this passage (along with WP:PEACOCK words on LotR):

 * ''H. R. Giger's art is highly accepted among geeks. A few exclusive geeks prefer Martin Bigum's comic-style paintings.

The header of the article clearly lays out what is supposed to be done here. This is about works that are fundamental to a culture, the kind of things so commonly referenced that you need say but one sentence and everyone knows what you're talking about. If only a few "exclusive" geeks like it, it can't possibly be "canon"!

Here's a proposed guideline: If there is not a substantial Wikipedia article to link to, it's probably not geek canon, considering the number of geeks on the Internet and Wikipedia. That said, I think this article needs to be actually whipped into shape. Sources won't be easy to come by, but surely someone's done some kind of sociological study. Anyone feel up for looking? SnowFire 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think both Giger, Martin Bigum and Tolkien has the right to be part of the Canon. Geeks are more than computer geeks. It's a culture concerned with fantasy, science fiction, roleplaying games, video games and comic books. (Comment added by User:Konzack - SF)

 * You are missing the point.

 * It's not what should be well-known (or "has the right to" as you put it).

 * It's what is well-known.

 * It doesn't matter that Aeschylus was a total hack who wrote the equivalent of South Park for the Greeks. He gets in the Western canon because he was well-read and spawned some imitators.  Some other Greek playwright who did work far better?  There are probably plenty, but even if you've read their stuff and know it's way better than Aeschylus', that doesn't make it well-known and influential.  The standard is influence and how widely known and respected a work is, not quality.  It's quite possible that Mr. Bigum is the greatest artist ever, but his tiny Wikipedia page that barely even mentions any works combined with a small Google precense (Escher has 14 times as many hits) nearly rules him out of contention for possibly being a member of a modern canon on popularity grounds.  There's still an argument to be made on influence grounds, but I don't see anyone offering evidence that he's dramatically altered or inspired lots of other artists respected in geek culture.  If you have some, feel free to put it forward.

 * Also, I never said anything about geeks only being computer geeks. SnowFire 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

H. R. Giger is well-known. So is Tolkien. If you are not familiar with these two artists you are not part of geek culture, trust me. Trust me they spawned some imitators. Martin Bigum on the other hand is explicitly defined as very special, but it is still part of the comic book geek culture.

And you do not just erase what other people write.

That's the point!

Btw. Escher isn't all that popular among geeks. But alright I've seen some Escher fans out there among the geek culture. Not anything compared to Giger fans though. After all he designed the alien in Alien (film).

User: Konzack, August 23, 2006.

 * As to erasing what other people write, from the bottom of every single edit page:

Please note:
 * If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

 * Look, if you want to make a case for them, this whole article could use some cites. If you can find a neutral reference that backs up your point, then great.  This article is sorely lacking sources that aren't the books being referenced as it stands.  But Bigum is not by any stretch well-known, and you have refused to offer any arguments as to why he might be influential.  Read what I said before about what a canon is!

 * I'm not erasing Tolkien; he's mentioned lots of times already in the article. However, statements like "The most important geek book ever written was The Lord of the Rings" don't help, at least not with an accompanying argument.  Again, see WP:PEACOCK.  As for Giger...  eh, I knew of him, but he was more a horror type, and half the time his work was being mocked.  He was a geek artist, sure, but I'd rank him on the level of maybe Ralpha Bakshi, which is not exactly a huge compliment.  That said, if someone can show why he was actually way more popular than I thought, feel free to add him.  You currently haven't done that, though.  (Edit: You just did in a later edit.  I'll think on that and look up more on Giger.)

 * On a less confrontational note... Use the "edit" button that should appear above the "Article Focus" header to add to that discussion.  Using the "plus" button starts a new discussion section, which it appears you don't want to do, since you keep using the old header tag. SnowFire 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all I agree that it need to be backed up. I will get back to that when all the other contributions cites their sources.

Yes, Tolkien is mentioned several times because he is important. But not his books, which was odd. Tolkien have influenced geek culture on every level. That is why he is so important. Giger is not just horror.

When editing one should try to make the best of it, not just erase what one does not like.

Read: Resolving disputes

Konzack 23 August 2006

 * There is a reason behind why I am aggressively reverting you, and it has nothing to do with me "not liking" those works.

 * If this was just a game of "SnowFire's tastes on a page," you'd be exactly right. I very specifically have tried to avoid adding anything of my own on this page, and in fact wasn't all that interested in it; it's just that when I found it a few months back, it was an utter mess.  I have tried to organize it better and guard it against it becoming "Someone else's fandoms on a page," hoping that someone would eventually come along and source things up.

 * I don't want to get out the flamethrower, but your user page claims that you are a Ph.D. What is the problem with the definition of "canon"?  Your very edit undercuts any claim of Mr. Bigum being canon!  If he is only liked by certain "exclusive" geeks, he is almost by definition not canon!  If someone added to an article on famous Squares "Billings Triangle, favored by some unique square enthusiasts," that can and should be reverted immediately, because a triangle is not a square.  By using the word "exclusive", you are basically saying "Bigum, who is not canon, is canon."  That is why I am reverting you.  It is a claim that by its very nature is not appropriate to the article.  See  for a comparable diff; a claim that undercuts itself should be removed.

 * The standards for something being called "canon" are traditionally very high. You could easily make an argument that this page is too long as it is, and certainly most of the last half is unsourced.  If you want to make an unfairness argument, we can always nuke the second half of the page entirely, and then require that any addition to the later sections be sourced.  Similar practices are done at articles like List of Internet slang that can attract random "I thought this was cool" additions.

 * As a random other comment, I'll just say that while not into comic books myself, I asked two friends of mine who are, and they'd never heard of Bigum. Anecdotes count for little, though.  I will once again request sources showing how popular he is, or, alternately, a work showing that he was popular in the right places, and inspired many other artists.

 * I'm familiar with dispute resolution, by the way, but I've never had to use it until now. I've put a request for a Third opinion up.  SnowFire 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify in case someone stops by for the third opinion, User:62.107.111.117 is a not signed in Konzack, so this debate is still between two people.

Let me stress again that this is not even remotely a "comic book geeks" type thing. Comic book geeks are crazily dedicated to Wikipedia- check out the extensively edited articles on random comic book characters no one has ever heard of over at Category:Comics some time. A legitimately well-known artist such as Jack Kirby has a large and well-done article with a fair amount of edits. Martin Bigum's article has a grand total of 3 edits, two by you, and the other by a formatting bot! Bigum has 11,500 Google hits. Teddy Kristiansen is also a minor Danish comics artist, but his article stub has edits by 8 different people, seemingly. He has 44,500 Google hits. Does Teddy Kristiansen get in as well? Or is Bigum the best kept secret fandom ever? (By the way, I was wrong above; I misread Bigum by an order of magnitude. "M.C. Escher" has 148 times as many hits as "Martin Bigum", not 14 times as I said before; it gets even worse if you just search for "Escher."

If you want to add something, then defend it. I don't like revert wars either, but I have posted detailed explanations as to why I'm doing this here. Surely you can defend your choices better than just telling me that I shouldn't delete things? SnowFire 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I do not think you can use google as such an authority.

 * Furthermore, Martin Bigum is not a comic artist he is an artist just like Escher and Giger.

 * What is your authority in this field anyway?
 * I'm a geek culture researcher. Who are you?

 * Konzack 25 August 2006
 * Let's ignore any argumentum ad verecundiam here, and get to the point. What is it? It sounds like you two are arguing about whether to mention or not H. R. Giger, Tolkien, Ecsher, and Martin Bigum? — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )

Not to be too snappy, but I'd recommend checking the reversions that have been going on for some time here, or the previous discussion. That's not quite it. If this article is just a "add fandoms you like" article, then it is more appropriate for a forum somewhere, and we can put this up for AfD. SnowFire 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tolkien is already in the article, multiple times. However, User:Konzack wants to give Tolkien greater focus.  Fine.  The problem is, it's a poorly written section that simply asserts that Tolkien is...  well, look at the reversion!  "The most important geek book ever written was The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien in which he presents the world of Middle-earth to his readers. This book has been a tremendous inspiration for geek culture."  Hyperbole like "the most important geek book ever written" is fine if you actually back it up and go into the issue deeper, but Konzack just stops.  This is not a fatal flaw, but it isn't well-written.  As WP:PEACOCK says, if something really is the greatest, that's fine, but you need to show why.  The section just reads very badly, like a POV piece, with that as the header.  This is especially vexing because, again, Tolkien is IN THE ARTICLE already!  It's not like he's being surpressed.
 * Giger is actually the most minor part in the dispute. Personally, I'm not sure if he should be here, but it's reasonable to add him.  He's getting caught in the crossfire to a degree, but I will add that Konzack has refused to explain why he should be in the article either, aside from saying that he designed the aliens from the movie "Alien" (and by a standard like that, I could easily come up with 20 other artists who should go in, but details).  Still, a footnote, really.
 * Bigum is the hugest part. I've basically explained my objections above.  The short recap is that a canon is, by definition, things that are so hugely influential or popular that they become part of a culture.  For instance, people make references to the Bible and Biblical stories all the time in standard English, even without realizing it.  Konzack's addition says "A few exclusive geeks prefer Martin Bigum."  This, by definition, rules himself out of a canon (unless he was secretly incredibly influential and he inspired other, more popular artists- except that isn't true, and Konzack hasn't tried to argue that either).  Including him on the list is akin to including a quality art-house movie on a list of blockbusters.  It may be good, but it completely misses the point of the list/article.
 * Martin Bigum seems rather unnoteable for this article. It seems reasonable to do give Tolkien a little more space. I think SnowFire is correct in saying this has become a list of geek fandoms, whereas it should be an article on geek canon, that goes more in depth in a few areas (such as Lord of the Rings). — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )

It still provokes me that you just erased what you did not like. Ok, let's forget mr. Bigum even though he is quite interesting from a geek cultural point of view. Anyway, let us move forward. I think you are right when I say that Tolkien needs more attention. Because his way of thinking subcreation has influenced geek culture on different levels from movies to videogames. H. R. Giger is still important not just because he made the Alien, but because he made Necronomicon paintings and bio-technological art. He is admittedly much more accepted and respected in European geek culture than in American geek culture. Please read: * Geek Culture: The 3rd Counter-Culture Konzack 27 August 2006

 * (Never mind. Didn't notice revert was different this time.)  Hopefully we can work things out, now.  SnowFire 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Got this quote from Richard Bartle: “The single most important influence on virtual worlds from fiction is J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Although it would be of huge significance merely for having established the genre of High Fantasy, its ultimate worth lies in its depiction of an imagined world. It's not the particular world it describes that is momentous (although Middle-earth is indeed classic source material for people writing new text-based games); rather, it's that creating a fully realized, make-believe world was shown to be actually possible. Prior to The Lord of the Rings, worlds of such depth were practically unknown”

Bartle, Richard (2004): Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders Publishing, p. 61-2

Konzack 28 August 2006

There is one thing that I'm unclear, why is Buffy the Vampire Slayer in quotes while the other stuff in the list is in italics? Illadar 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Geek Canon on the internet?
Frankly, this whole subsection is full of BS. It says that sites like Google, YouTube, and Myspace used to be popular with geeks, but that geeks now avoid them because they are too mainstream. As far as I know, Geeks have hated Myspace since day one (I know I hated it long before it was mainstream) and I know for a fact that many geeks frequent youtube and Google. In matter of fact among many geeks, Google is considered the corporation of geekdom--one to be lauded, not scorned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.96.230 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

This page seems to be nothing but original research
Let's get some cites pronto or a call for deletion is in order... 209.148.118.3 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Well. Yes and no.  I try to avoid looking at this article because, well, ugh, but I did try and clean it up awhile back (it used to be even worse).  I see that others recently added nonsensical sections, like the websites one.

 * Anyway. I agree that this article is really bad and probably contains OR, but I was hoping that in the eventualist spirit of Wikipedia, people would eventually offer cites and so on.  They don't seem to be doing so, alas.  Maybe we should just amputate the entire last half of the article, and require that people come packing a cite from a reasonably authoritative source that (XYZ book) is well loved and respected?  Merely hyperbolic personal reviews wouldn't count, since there are plenty of items with fierce niche audiences.  SnowFire 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a random reader, but why hasn't this page been killed yet? It's unencyclopedic, unsourced, and generally sloppy. While this is an interesting subject for discussion and could make some fantastic articles I don't believe that it's right for here. Not to mention that some of the entries can be highly debateable.

Firstly the quality of the information here is close to first rate, if not first rate. There doesn't appear to be any 'spare' items in the entries, the article doesn't appear to be in danger of having people add 'personal favourites' as the lists are quite lean, some having only two or three items/authors. As to the accusation towards original research I'm fairly certain that many many sources can be found and I will in fact commit myself to finding them, because I am just so sick and tired of good articles getting extermined by the wikipolice who DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT THEY ARE EDITTING. --I 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Agreed! This article did not seem to turn out as the original planner intended. Seems more like a who's who and what's what for everyone's favorite niche title. I think it should be deleted. Either that, or have the main points (mostly in the beginning) merged into the main geek article. Mr. ATOZ 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm going to reiterate my suggestion of deletion, while I agree that this is a fascinating subject which certainly merits discussion, I don't believe it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. A list of geek canon will vary immensely between types of geek, generations of geeks and even individuals. 81.151.247.228 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree. I already redirected it once, but then it seems a good-faith effort was made to source the article... which then kind of sputtered out.  Sigh.  May be best to redirect it again.  SnowFire 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * This article is entirely Original Research. Note that the Western Cannon article does not attempt to list what works are part of the cannon.  Instead, it lists catalogs of the cannon.  Wikipedia is not a place to attempt creating such a list, it's a place to note attempts to create such lists elsewhere.  If there are not attempts elsewhere, than the concept of a geek cannon probably isn't notable.  Ocicat 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

 * Well, some examples are appropriate. The Western Canon (note: one n) article's lack of a mention of Homer is probably over the line.  But yeah.  Looks like it's best to redirect this again, and hope its contents can be remade in a better form.  SnowFire 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources.
From NeonMerlin:
 * Lack of references, or even alleged lack of verifiability, is not sufficient grounds for deleting an article without a vote.

Mm. I didn't delete it, obviously; I redirected it, and nicely put a reminder over at Talk:Geek. If you want to make an effort to source this article, then great, but basically none of the current sources are any good (the only one on point is from Mr. Konzack above, and it's awful.). Ideally we want sources that don't just praise an item, but rather confirm that it's strongly referenced in a geek subculture. If these sources don't come along soon, I unfortunately will nom it for AfD, and I don't think it'll survive if the comments above are any indication. SnowFire 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Geek canon


text:
List of current Major League Baseball stadiums

There are 30 stadiums in use by Major League Baseball (MLB) teams. The oldest ballpark is Fenway Park in Boston, home of the Boston Red Sox, which opened in 1912. The newest stadium is Globe Life Field in Arlington, Texas, home of the Texas Rangers, which opened in 2020. Two ballparks were built in the 1910s, three in the 1960s, one in the 1970s, one in the 1980s, seven in the 1990s, twelve in the 2000s, three in the 2010s, and one in the 2020s. Twenty-five ballparks have natural grass surfaces, while five have artificial turf. Nine ballparks do not have corporate naming rights deals: Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium, Fenway Park, Kauffman Stadium, Nationals Park, Oakland Coliseum, Oriole Park at Camden Yards, Wrigley Field, and Yankee Stadium.

Stadiums
Legend:
 * † Denotes stadium with a fixed roof
 * ‡ Denotes stadium with a retractable roof


text:
Eastern Front

Eastern Front may refer to:

War fronts:
 * Eastern Front (World War I)
 * Eastern Front (World War II)
 * Eastern Front (Turkey), of the Turkish War of Independence
 * Turkish–Armenian War, often referred to by itself as the Eastern Front
 * Eastern Front (Sudan)
 * Eastern Front of the Russian Civil War
 * Eastern Front of the Red Army
 * Eastern Front of the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

Games and books:
 * 1635: The Eastern Front (novel)
 * EastFront, 1991 board wargame
 * Eastern Front (1941) (video game)
 * East Front, a 1997 video game

title: Eastern Front


text:
Talk:Eastern Front

Merge with Eastern Front (World War II)
Uh... out of curiosity you are aware that there's already an article on the Eastern Front of World War II, right? Oberiko 17:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * I have requested a merger.

 * Incidentally, this is why not to get creative with disambig pages - either it is, and is short and and in a stylized format, with all content off in their own articles, or is not, in which there shouldn't be links to separate "real" articles. Stan 23:28, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Concur. Ellsworth 19:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article-ize
This should be turned into an article, like Western Front is, and the dab page should be moved to Eastern Front (disambiguation), similar to the Western Front (disambiguation). 76.66.202.139 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Eastern Front


text:
Gardiners Bay

Gardiners Bay is a small arm of the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 10 mi (16 km) long and 8 mi (13 km) wide in the U.S. state of New York between the two flukelike peninsulas at the eastern end of Long Island. It is bounded on its eastern end, where it connects to Block Island Sound, by Gardiners Island and Promised Land.

Adjoining harbors include Three Mile Harbor, Clearwater beach, Acabonack Harbor, and Lazy Point's Napeague harbor. Native fish include; Striped Bass, Bluefish, Fluke, Yellowtail, flounder, blackfish, weakfish, Porgy, sea Robbin, and sea skate. The area is fed by the nearby estuaries of Three mile Harbor, Acabonack Creek, and Napeague, which produce ideal environments for shellfish and crustaceans. Blue claw crab, oysters, and hard shell clams, scallops, and conch are abundant throughout these areas.

It is bounded on the western end by Shelter Island. It connects by two channels at the north and south end of Shelter Island to Great Peconic Bay. During the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812, the bay was controlled by the British, who used Gardiners Island to store provisions. The British fleet assembled in Cherry Harbor in the bay before sailing to Chesapeake Bay to attack Washington, D.C. and burn the United States Capitol.

Gardiners Bay is part of the Peconic Estuary and received the designation as an Estuary of National Significance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1993.

Pop Culture References
Gardiners Bay is mentioned in the song 'The Downeaster "Alexa"' by Billy Joel.

title: Gardiners Bay


text:
Pigasus

Pigasus, a portmanteau of pig and Pegasus, may refer to:

 * Pigasus, a character created by Ruth Plumly Thompson in her continuations of the Oz series of books
 * Pigasus, a personal symbol used by John Steinbeck
 * Pigasus (politics), the Youth International Party ("Yippie") candidate for the U.S. presidency in 1968
 * Pigasus Award, an award given out by James Randi which recognizes paranormal frauds

title: Pigasus


text:
Kevin Mitchell (baseball)

Kevin Darnell Mitchell (born January 13, 1962) is an American professional baseball left fielder who played in Major League Baseball (MLB) and Nippon Professional Baseball from 1984 to 1998. Mitchell was a two-time MLB All-Star and won the National League Most Valuable Player Award and Silver Slugger Award in 1989, when he led the league in home runs and runs batted in.

Early life
Mitchell was born in San Diego to Alma Mitchell, who worked as an electrician with the US Navy. Alma separated from Mitchell's father, Earl, when Mitchell was two years old. He was raised primarily with his paternal grandmother, Josie Whitfield, who encouraged his participation in sports. Because Mitchell struggled academically, he attended several high schools in San Diego including Lincoln High School, Clairemont High School and Crawford High School, where he claimed to have played water polo. Although he has been credited with graduating from Clairemont and has claimed to have been a high school football star there, Mitchell only attended the school for two months in 1978. He was reportedly involved in street gangs as a youth, but has claimed he was never himself a member; he also claimed to have been shot three times in his youth. His stepbrother, Donald, was killed in a gang fight.

Mitchell reportedly did not play high school baseball. He was signed by the New York Mets as an undrafted free agent following an open tryout at Grossmont College. He was given a $1,500 signing bonus plus $600 monthly in salary.

New York Mets
In Amazin', Peter Golenbock's oral history of the New York Mets, Hall of Fame catcher Gary Carter said he gave Mitchell the nickname "World" for his ability to play in the infield and outfield. Carter spoke fondly of Mitchell's talents.

In the tenth inning of Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, after Wally Backman and Keith Hernandez had been retired for the first two outs, he was called to pinch hit for reliever Rick Aguilera after Gary Carter, the next hitter after Hernandez, singled. Mitchell, who had already gotten out of his uniform and had on his regular clothes, hurriedly put his uniform back on without his protective cup and went to the plate and singled. He would eventually score the tying run on Bob Stanley's wild pitch to Mookie Wilson.

In a July 2007 radio interview with San Francisco sports talk radio station KNBR, Mitchell disputed that he was out of uniform at the time, and stated that he never wore a cup, even when playing infield. When asked why he never wore a cup, Mitchell responded, "I couldn’t find one big enough for my junk." The interviewer then commented that maybe the increased mobility helped Mitchell to make the famous 1989 barehanded catch of Ozzie Smith's fly ball.

On December 11, 1986, the Mets traded Mitchell, Shawn Abner, Stan Jefferson, Kevin Armstrong, and Kevin Brown to the San Diego Padres for Kevin McReynolds, Gene Walter, and Adam Ging. Mitchell played for the Padres for half a season.

San Francisco Giants
On July 4, 1987, Mitchell was traded to the Giants as part of a multi-player trade that also sent pitchers Dave Dravecky and Craig Lefferts to San Francisco in exchange for third baseman Chris Brown and pitchers Keith Comstock, Mark Davis, and Mark Grant. While Dravecky was initially considered to be the key to the trade for the Giants, it was Mitchell who emerged as a star player.

After two seasons playing primarily at third base, he had his best season with the Giants in 1989 upon being moved to the outfield. In that season, he batted .291 with a league-best 125 RBI and 47 home runs, leading the team to the playoffs and winning the National League's Most Valuable Player award, the first by a Giant since Willie McCovey in 1969. He added a .353 average and 2 homers in the NLCS to help the team to its first World Series appearance since 1962.
 * Most Valuable Player

Mitchell set the tone for his charmed 1989 season early in the year with a unique defensive play on April 26. Sprinting toward the left field foul line in St. Louis's Busch Stadium, for a ball off the bat of Ozzie Smith, Mitchell realized he had overrun the ball, but was able to reach back and snare the ball with his bare hand.
 * The barehanded catch

Later years
Mitchell was a two-time All-Star with the Giants. Traded to the Mariners after the 1991 season, he arrived at spring training the following year 30 pounds (14 kg) overweight and hit only nine homers that year while batting .286. After starting the 1992 season in a horrible slump in April and May, Mitchell rebounded and batted .337 the rest of the way and hit seven of his nine home runs and knocked in 47 of his 67 RBI in just the last 54 games of the 1992 season. He had a resurgence in two seasons with the Reds, batting .341 with 19 home runs and 64 RBI in just 323 at-bats in 1993 and .323 with 30 home runs and 77 RBI in the strike-shortened 1994 season. However, his weight problems kept him from being more productive. Because of the baseball strike, he opted to play for the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks in Japan the following year, where he became the highest-paid player in Japanese history. In Japan, he incurred the displeasure of team management when he chose to travel to the U.S. in mid-season for treatment of knee problems against the team's wishes. He spent only two months with the team. It was discovered later that he did indeed need surgery on his knee.

In the next two years, he played for four major league teams (Cincinnati, Boston, Cleveland, Oakland), showing flashes of his former ability.

In May 1997 while with the Cleveland Indians, after teammate Chad Curtis objected to lyrics of a rap song Mitchell was playing in the clubhouse, and shut off the clubhouse stereo, Curtis exchanged punches with Mitchell, who threw Curtis over a ping pong table. Curtis sustained a bruised right thumb in the fight, and was placed on the 15-day disabled list.

Since his retirement, Mitchell lives in San Diego, and plays in the San Diego Adult Baseball League for the championship team, the San Diego Black Sox.

Arrests and suspension
Mitchell was the subject of a rape investigation in Chula Vista, California, in December 1991. No charges were filed.

After being released from Major League Baseball for the last time, he was arrested in 1999 for assaulting his father during an argument. In the independent leagues as manager of the Sonoma County Crushers in 2000, he was suspended for nine games after punching the opposing team's owner in the mouth during a brawl.

In 2010, Mitchell was arrested for alleged misdemeanor battery at the Bonita Golf Club in Bonita, California. He was ordered to perform community service and attend anger management classes.

Career in review
In his 13-season career with eight teams, Mitchell batted .284, with 234 home runs, 760 runs batted in, 630 runs scored, 1,173 hits, 224 doubles, 25 triples and 491 bases on balls in 1,223 games.

Mitchell's cousin, Keith Mitchell, also played in the major leagues for four teams across four seasons (between 1991 and 1998), ending his career with a .260 batting average and eight home runs.

title: Kevin Mitchell (baseball)


text:
Talk:Wug test

Hyphenation
Isn't wug test sometimes hyphenated as wug-test?

- No.yes

Humor
Here's my version of the wug test. If quizzes are quizzical, then tests are... -- I know already71.190.75.101 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

-sh
-Iz is not rare 71.190.75.101 (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wug test


text:
Mouse on Mars

Mouse on Mars is a German electronic music duo formed in 1993 by Jan St. Werner and Andi Toma. Their music is a blend of electronic genres including IDM, dub, krautrock, breakbeat and ambient, featuring heavy use of organic analog synth and cross-frequency modulation. Their music also features live instrumentation including strings, horns, drums, bass, and guitar.

History
St. Werner, from Cologne, and Toma, from Düsseldorf, are childhood friends who were born on the same day and in the same hospital. They both experimented with electronic music in the mid 1990s. On earlier recordings, their music was primarily krautrock, dub, techno and ambient, and did not feature vocals, but more recent recordings increasingly include vocals from featured guest artists, many of whom have toured with the duo.

Their first album, Vulvaland, was released in 1994 on the British record label Too Pure. Sean Cooper of AllMusic stated that it is "a wibbly, barely digital match of ambient texturology with experimental strains of techno, dub, and Krautrock." Their second album, Iaora Tahiti, has a much more playful feel and encompasses a wider variety of electronic dance genres. Over the years, their sound has increased in warmth, playfulness and what the duo term "fantastic analysis". Their sixth album Niun Niggung (released on Domino Records in 2000), showed live instruments becoming more prominent. Idiology, their seventh album, continued this practice, and on their eighth album, Radical Connector, they took more of an accessible "pop" approach; both also increasingly included vocals, primarily from touring drummer Dodo NKishi.

Mouse on Mars regularly perform live as a three-piece, with Toma & St. Werner augmented by drummer Dodo NKishi. In 2005, they released their first live album, titled Live 04.

The band released their tenth full album, Parastrophics, almost six years later, in February 2012. It was their first album to be released under Modeselektor's Monkeytown record label. Following this another six years later, the band reunited with Thrill Jockey to release Dimensional People in April 2018.

St. Werner has released solo work under his own name, and as Lithops and Noisemashinetapes. St. Werner also partners with Markus Popp of Oval for Microstoria. St. Werner has also collaborated with the renowned visual artist Rosa Barba. While releasing albums on British indie labels, Mouse on Mars started their own label, Sonig, on which they release their own work and that of other German artists. They have also produced a number of EPs and have recorded music for film soundtracks as well as remixing the work of other musicians.

In 2018 with the release of the Dimensional People release, the band perform under the name of Dimensional People Ensemble, an ensemble of drums, horns, strings, vocals, and electronic instruments, played by robotics and humanoids.

Collaborations
Mouse on Mars collaborated in the studio and toured with Stereolab in the mid 1990s – the results can be heard on Stereolab's Dots and Loops album and the associated Miss Modular single, and Mouse on Mars' Cache Cœur Naïf EP. St. Werner and Lætitia Sadier have also performed karaoke duets. The duo collaborated with Mark E. Smith of The Fall in a band called Von Südenfed in 2007. Their album is called Tromatic Reflexxions.

A mini album was released November 2012, titled WOW. The album marked the duo's first recorded collaboration with the vocalist Dao Anh Khanh, producer Eric D. Clarke and the punk band, Las Kellies.

Studio albums

 * Vulvaland (1994)
 * Iaora Tahiti (1995)
 * Autoditacker (1997)
 * Instrumentals (1997)
 * Glam (1998)
 * Niun Niggung (1999)
 * Idiology (2001)
 * Radical Connector (2004)
 * Varcharz (2006)
 * Parastrophics (2012)
 * Dimensional People (2018)
 * AAI (2021)

Live albums

 * 2005 Live 04

Mini albums

 * 2012 WOW

Collaborations

 * 2007 Tromatic Reflexxions (with Mark E. Smith as Von Südenfed)

Compilations

 * 1994 ''Trance Europe Express – Volume 3 CD 2, track 01: Mouse On Mars – Maus Mobil (6:30)
 * 1998 1001 – On In Memoriam Gilles Deleuze on the label Mille Plateaux
 * 1998 Illuminati – a remix album of The Pastels
 * 2003 Rost Pocks: The EP Collection
 * 2006 Silver Monk Time – a tribute to the monks (29 bands cover the MONKS)
 * 2014 21 Again (Collaborations)

Singles and EPs

 * 1994 Frosch
 * 1995 Bib
 * 1995 Saturday Night Worldcup Fieber
 * 1997 Cache Cœur Naïf (EP)
 * 1997 Twift
 * 1999 Pickly Dred Rhizzoms (EP)
 * 1999 Distroia
 * 1999 Diskdusk
 * 2001 Actionist Respoke
 * 2002 Agit Itter It
 * 2005 Wipe That Sound
 * 2012 They Know Your Name
 * 2014 Spezmodia
 * 2017 Synaptics EP

title: Mouse on Mars


text:
Clear Skies Act of 2003

The Clear Skies Act of 2003 was a proposed federal law of the United States. The official title as introduced is "a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution through expansion of cap-and-trade programs, to provide an alternative regulatory classification for units subject to the cap and trade program, and for other purposes."

The bill's Senate version was sponsored by James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma and George Voinovich (R) of Ohio; the House version  was sponsored by Joe Barton (R) of Texas and Billy Tauzin (R) of Louisiana. Both versions were introduced on February 27, 2003.

Upon introduction of the bill, Inhofe said, "Moving beyond the confusing, command-and-control mandates of the past, Clear Skies cap-and-trade system harnesses the power of technology and innovation to bring about significant reductions in harmful pollutants." The Clear Skies Act came about as the result of President Bush's Clear Skies Initiative.

In early March 2005, the bill did not move out of committee when members were deadlocked 9-9. Seven Democrats, James Jeffords (I) of Vermont, and Lincoln Chafee (R) of Rhode Island voted against the bill; nine Republicans supported it. Within days, the Bush administration moved to implement key measures, such as the NOx, SO2 and mercury trading provisions of the bill administratively through EPA. It remains to be seen how resistant these changes will be to court challenges.

Background: The Clear Skies Initiative
On February 14, 2002, President George W. Bush announced the Clear Skies Initiative. The policy was put together by Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and involved the work of Senators Bob Smith and George Voinovich and Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Joe Barton. The Initiative is based on a central idea: "that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies." The resulting proposal was a market-based cap-and-trade approach which intends to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps. The Initiative would reduce the cost and complexity of compliance and the need for litigation.

Current power plant emissions amounted to 67% of all sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions (in the United States), 37% of mercury emissions, and 25% of all nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions. Only SO2 has been administered under a cap-and-trade program.

The goals of the Initiative are threefold:
 * Cut SO2 emissions by 73%, from emissions of 11 million tons to a cap of 4.5 million tons in 2010, and 3 million tons in 2018.
 * Cut NOx emissions by 67%, from emissions of 5 million tons to a cap of 2.1 million tons in 2008, and to 1.7 million tons in 2018.
 * Cut mercury emissions by 69%, from emissions of 48 tons to a cap of 26 tons in 2010, and 15 tons in 2018.
 * Actual emissions caps would be set to account for different air quality needs in the East and West.

Through the use of a market-based cap-and-trade program, the intent of the Initiative was to reward innovation, reduce costs, and guarantee results. Each power plant facility would be required to have a permit for each ton of pollution emitted. Because the permits are tradeable, companies would have a financial incentive to cut back their emissions using newer technologies.

The Initiative was modeled on the successful SO2 emissions trading program in effect since 1995. According to the President, the program had reduced air pollution more than all other programs under the Clean Air Act of 1990 combined. Actual reductions were more than the law required and compliance was virtually 100% without the need for litigation. Also, he said that only a "handful" of employees were needed to administer the program. The total cost to achieve the reductions was about 80% less than had originally been expected.

Bush mentioned several benefits of the Initiative:
 * Reduces respiratory and cardiovascular diseases by dramatically reducing smog, fine particles, and regional haze.
 * Protects wildlife, habitats and ecosystem health from acid rain, nitrogen and mercury deposition.
 * Cuts pollution further, faster, cheaper, and with more certainty—replacing a cycle of endless litigation with rapid and certain improvements in air quality.
 * Saves as much as $1 billion annually in compliance costs that are passed along to consumers.
 * Protects the reliability and affordability of electricity.
 * Encourages use of new and cleaner pollution control technologies.

Competing proposals
In May 2004, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a study comparing the Clear Skies Act with the Clean Air Planning Act of 2003 (S. 843), introduced by Senator Thomas R. Carper, and the Clean Power Act of 2003 (S. 366), introduced by Senator James Jeffords.

The differences between the three bills are summarized as follows:
 * Carbon dioxide emissions: While all three bills implement emissions targets on power sector emissions of NOx, SO2, and mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act and the Clean Power Act also call for limits on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Under the Clean Air Planning Act, greenhouse gas emission reductions outside of the power sector, referred to as offsets, can be used to meet the emission targets for CO2.
 * Size of generators covered: All three bills cover emissions from larger generators that generate power for sale, including central station generators and generators at customer sites that sell power they do not use for their own needs. The Clear Skies and Clean Air Planning Acts cover generating facilities 25 megawatts and larger, while the Clean Power Act covers facilities 15 megawatts and larger.  The bills have differing provisions regarding the coverage of combined heat and power facilities that generate some power for sale.
 * Emissions caps: The bills generally rely on emissions cap and trade programs to achieve the required reductions. Under such programs, allowances will be allocated and covered generators will have to submit one allowance for each unit of emissions they produce.  However, for mercury, the Clean Air Planning Act combines a minimum removal target for all plants with an emissions cap, and the Clean Power Act specifies a maximum emissions rate for all facilities and allows no trading of mercury allowances.  The Clear Skies Act contains a "safety valve" feature that caps the price that power companies would have to pay for mercury ($2,187.50 per ounce or $35,000 per pound), SO2 ($4,000 per ton), and NOx ($4,000 per ton) allowances.  Should one or more of these "safety valves" be triggered, the corresponding cap on emissions would effectively be relaxed.
 * Emissions allocation: Under the Clear Skies Act, emission allowances are to be allocated based on historical fuel consumption, what is often referred to as "grandfathering". Under the Clean Air Planning Act, a grandfathering approach is used to allocate emission allowances for SO2, but allowances for NOx, mercury, and CO2, are allocated using an output-based scheme.  Under this approach, referred to as a generation performance standard (GPS), generators are given allowances for each unit of electricity they generate.  The number of allowances allocated for each unit of generation changes each year as the total generation from covered sources changes.  The use of a GPS dampens the electricity price impacts of the bill but raises overall compliance costs.
 * Control technology: In addition to the emission caps, the Clean Power Act also requires that all plants have the best available control technology (BACT) beginning in 2014 or when they reach 40 years of age, whichever comes later. This provision, often referred to as a "birthday" provision, requires older plants to add controls even if the total emissions of covered facilities are below the emission caps.

Criticisms in opposition
The law reduces air pollution controls, including those environmental protections of the Clean Air Act, including caps on toxins in the air and budget cuts for enforcement. The Act is opposed by conservationist groups such as the Sierra Club with Henry A. Waxman, a Democratic congressman of California, describing its title as "clear propaganda."

Among other things, the Clear Skies Act:
 * Allows 42 million more tons of pollution emitted than the EPA proposal.
 * Weakens the current cap on nitrogen oxide pollution levels from 1.25 million tons to 2.1 million tons, allowing 68% more NOx pollution.
 * Delays the improvement of sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution levels compared to the Clean Air Act requirements.
 * Delays enforcement of smog-and-soot pollution standards until 2015.

By 2018, the Clear Skies Act will supposedly allow 3 million tons more NOx through 2012 and 8 million more by 2020, for SO2, 18 million tons more through 2012 and 34 million tons more through 2020. 58 tons more mercury through 2012 and 163 tons more through 2020 would be released into the environment than what would be allowed by enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

In August 2001, the EPA proposed a version of the Clear Skies Act that contained short timetables and lower emissions caps. It is unknown why this proposal was withdrawn and replaced with the Bush administration proposal. It is also unclear whether or not the original EPA proposal would have made it out of committee.

In addition, some opponents consider the term, "Clear Skies Initiative" (similarly to the Healthy Forests Initiative), to be an example of administration Orwellian Doublespeak, using environmentally friendly terminology as "cover" for a give-away to business interests.

Arguments in favor
Proponents for the CSA argue that the Clean Air Act sets unachievable goals, especially for ozone and nitrogen oxide pollution. Having a clearly defined cap will benefit both industry and the general population because the goals are visible to everyone and industry benefits from cost-certainty. For example, the claim that simply enforcing the Clean Air Act will result in less pollution than the Clear Skies Act assumes that strict measures will be taken in heavily polluting areas, such as Los Angeles and other municipalities. Measures such as transportation control were taken in the 1970s but were withdrawn amid widespread public protest. Proponents of reform argue that a more likely result of following the current Clean Air Act is the continued 'muddling along' approach to environmental legislation, with most important decisions made in courts on a case-by-case basis after many years of litigation.

title: Clear Skies Act of 2003


text:
North Dakota Legislative Assembly

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly is the state legislature of the U.S. state of North Dakota. The Legislative Assembly consists of two chambers, the lower North Dakota House of Representatives, with 94 representatives, and the upper North Dakota Senate, with 47 senators. The state is divided into 47 constituent districts, with two representatives and one senator elected from each district. Due to the Legislative Assembly being a biennial legislature, with the House and Senate sitting for only 80 days in odd-numbered years, a Legislative Council oversees legislative affairs in the interim periods, doing longer-term studies of issues, and drafting legislation for consideration of both houses during the next session.

Members of both houses are limited to two four-year terms since January 2023. Prior to this, members were elected without term limits.

The Legislative Assembly convenes in the west chamber of the 19-story Art Deco state capitol building in Bismarck.

Constitutional mandates
According to Article IV, Section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution, the Senate must be composed of no fewer than 40 senators, and no more than 54. Similarly, the House of Representatives must be composed of no fewer than 80 and no more than 108 representatives. Section 2 states that the Legislative Assembly can divide the state into as many legislative districts of compact and contiguous territory as there are senators. A senator and at least two representatives must be apportioned to each senatorial district and be elected at large or from subdistricts from those districts. The Legislative Assembly may combine two senatorial districts only when a single member senatorial district includes a federal facility or federal installation, containing over two-thirds of the population of a single member senatorial district, and may provide for the election of senators at-large and representatives at-large from subdistricts from those districts.

On September 1, 1970, North Dakota voters approved calling a constitutional convention. As part of the convention, on April 28, 1972, North Dakota held a ballot referral on whether the legislature should remain bicameral or become unicameral. While voters approved a change to a unicameral legislature by nearly 70-30, it would have only taken effect if the voters also approved the new state constitution on the same ballot, but it was rejected 62.69-37.31.

In addition to a four-year term for both houses of the Legislative Assembly, Section 3 states that one-half of the members of the Senate and one-half of the members of the House of Representatives must be elected biennially. Originally, the North Dakota Constitution limited members of the North Dakota House of Representatives to two-year terms, with the all representatives standing for reelection at the same time. In 1996, the voters approved a constitutional amendment that changed the term for representatives to four-years with staggered terms. The amendment went into effect July 1, 1997, and was first applied in the 1998 elections. In 2022, they also approved another amendment, a measure that imposed a two-term limit for assembly members elected since that year. All statutes passed by the Legislative Assembly and signed by the governor become part of the North Dakota Century Code.

Qualifications
Members of both houses elected to the Legislative Assembly must be, on the day of the election, a qualified elector from their home district and must be a resident of North Dakota for one year immediately prior to their election.

Legislative management
Due to the biennial nature of the legislature, legislation, research, committee reports, and testimony during interim periods is provided by the Legislative Management. Legislative Management consists of 17 legislators, including the majority and minority leaders of both houses and the Speaker of the House. The Speaker appoints six other representatives, three from the majority party and three from the minority party as recommended by the majority and minority leaders, respectively. The Lieutenant Governor, as President of the Senate, appoints four senators from the majority and two from the minority as recommended by the majority and minority leaders, though the Senate President does not sit on Legislative Management.

Meeting places
Built between 1883 and 1884, the original territorial (and later) state capitol building served as the home to the Legislative Assembly until the morning of December 28, 1930, when the original building burned down. During the fire, Secretary of State Robert Byrne saved the original copy of the state constitution, but suffered cuts and burns on his hands while breaking a window to reach the document. In the interim period without a capitol, the Legislative Assembly convened in both the War Memorial Building and the City Auditorium in Bismarck. Under the approval of Governor George F. Shafer, the current Art Deco capitol was built as a replacement between 1931 and 1934 in the midst of the Great Depression.

title: North Dakota Legislative Assembly


text:
Aschiza

The Aschiza are a section of the Brachycera. Two large families, the Syrphidae and the Phoridae, and a number of smaller taxa are in this group. They are similar to most of the familiar Muscomorpha with one notable exception; they do not possess a ptilinum, so lack the prominent ptilinal suture on the face as in other muscoid flies. They do still have a puparium with a circular emergence opening, but it is not as precisely ellipsoid in shape as is typical for other muscoids. The term was first used by Eduard Becher.

title: Aschiza


text:
Talk:Harshad number

189
So... unless I'm not getting the concept right, 189 is not a Harshad number, is it? Since 1 + 8 + 9 = 18, and 189 / 18 = 10.5, which is not an integer. What am I missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.58.164 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct. I don't know why 189 was listed but I have removed it. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Error in statement of theorem
The article says:

 * H.G. Grundman proved in 1994 that in base 10 there are no sequences with more than 20 consecutive Harshad numbers,

but there is a missing word here, since clearly there is a sequence with more than 20 consecutive Harshad numbers, namely the sequence of Harshad numbers, whose initial segment is cited at the top of the article. Perhaps this should say "arithmetic sequence"? -- Dominus 00:53, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

No error
I just misunderstood it. The article was apparently saying that there are no sequences of more than 20 consecutive numbers that are all Harshad numbers. I have reworded the article in a way I find clearer. -- Dominus 00:58, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I find your way to be clearer, too. Thanks for clarifying it. PrimeFan 19:57, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Ditto. I was trying to fix it, but realized I wasn't sure what it originally meant. Thanks. Grendelkhan 22:35, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

 * It is my pleasure to assist. -- Dominus 00:34, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Understatement of the century

 * He [Grundmann] also found the smallest sequence of 20 consecutive integers that are all Harshad numbers; they exceed 1044.

The above statement is correctish, but at the same time looks like a misinterpretation of the facts. Various sources claim that the 20 numbers in the sequence exceed 1044363342786. I wasn't able to find more information, which is why I'm not editing the article right away. —Herbee 22:43, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
 * MathWorld agrees, so i changed the article Illuvatar 17:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Is it Harshad or Harshard? Both appear multiple times in the article.

 * I changed them to Harshad. It's the name of the article, it gets more google hits, and it shows up in mathworld.  If it can also be spelled Harshard, we should mention it

Origin ?
Why is it called a Harshad number ? Is Harshad name of a person ? Jay 07:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Factorials in base 10
Anyone know why the factorials are all Harshad numbers? Anyone know why it's only in base 10? --Doradus 19:52, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not all are: the article says 432! is the first which is not. But as an aside, factorials can be dived by a large number of numbers, while the higher the base, the smaller the sum of the digits, and so the more likely they are to divide into a factorial. --Audiovideo 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Consecutive Harshad Numbers -- Generalization
Base 2 -> Infinitely many sequences of 4 consecutive numbers. Base 3 -> Infinitely many sequences of 6 consecutive numbers. ... Base 10 -> Infinitely many sequences of 20 consecutive numbers? [Article doesn't say it, but implies it, IMHO.] Does anyone know if this can be generalized? 70.178.215.64 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It certainly says it now. PJTraill (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Notability
I can see this has enough notability for an article, but does it have enough to be linked from each Harshad number. I don't see it as a notable fact about 300 or similar numbers --Audiovideo 17:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, since it only applies to base 10 Harshad numbers. PJTraill (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

More Numerology than Number Theory
Although the article correctly identifies this property of "numbers" as base specific, I think it should explicitly point out the this is a property of number representation and not of numbers themselves. Any number is a Harshad Number if you choose the right base. Pure properties of numbers, e.g. primeness, are base independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.60.15 (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not numerlogy, which is superstition, also not true number theory, just recreational mathematics, which is harmless. It is a property of number pairs. See further my reaction a few minutes ago in a later section. PJTraill (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this statement correct?
This sentence at the end of the introduction seems to contradict the list of Harshad numbers" "All integers between zero and n are Harshad numbers." Has a qualifying phrase been removed about bases or something? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! the phrase "... in base n" had been truncated, but is now back. I figured it was something like that. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A statement which appears to be problematic
The article says: "Interpolating zeroes into N will not change the sequence of digital sums, so it is possible to convert any solution into a larger one by interpolating a suitable number of zeroes" According to this statement, since 112 is a Harshad number in base 10 (1+1+2=4, and 122 is divisible by 4), so would 1102 - but it clearly isn't, since no umber ending in 02 is divisible by 4. 77.125.4.148 (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The catch is in the word “suitable”; I shall try to clarify that. PJTraill (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have done that, but I was not able to provide a complete proof; perhaps someone can add the remaining details.PJTraill (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Use and Purpose
One thing I have always found with many of mathematics articles is a lack of information on relevance and uses. Coming from a science and engineering background, I see math as a tool, with a means to obtain expected results. I understand there are lots of mathematical terms that have no real basis in the world (or none currently discovered). I think it would be very useful and meaningful to include a section on application of the theories in the wiki, even if the application is something as basic as: "Recreational Mathematical Artifact or exercise with no known engineering application."

I do not know enough about Harshad numbers, but could see potential in cryptography that may go beyond recreational purpose. fter reading through the article, though, the only function I gleamed was that of recreational mathematics. If someone knows an application, please take a moment to write something up. It would be great to know if the theory is purely for entertainment purposes, a process searching for some special meaning, or something with proven real world applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.55.51.54 (talk) 22:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

 * I agree, and this may also be related to the talk section "More Numerology than Number Theory". While Harshad numbers (particularly base 10) may be interesting playthings that bring joy to some folks, presumably they earned a name and continued interest because they are useful in some way.  The only thing I've learned about Harshad numbers is that apparently a great many phone numbers are Harshad numbers.  What that has to do with anything, I don't know.  24.57.218.21 (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 * I googled Harshad numbers, and found nothing about applications, not even within pure mathematics. This suggests it is purely recreational mathematics (not numerology, if you follow Wikipedia in taking that to mean superstition or pseudomathematics). The purpose of recreational mathematics is to challenge and entertain, without the requirement in normal mathematics of significance; that is hard to define, but would include universality (does not depend on how many fingers we have or how we choose to write numbers) and applicability to other areas of mathematics or the the real world; as a result of applicability, normal mathematics also builds up considerable depth: to prove a result, many others may be required. Lack of significance reduces the satisfaction, but makes the problems approachable without training. Harshad numbers thus appear to be useful only insomuch as they entertain; it would be unfair to scoff at (added: such PJTraill (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC))articles, but reasonable to expect it to be made clear. (I see it asserted elsewhere that the phone number business is nonsense, which sounds likely.) PJTraill (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Niven numbers were referenced as early as 1984 and base characteristics proven first by Robert kennedy and Curtis cooper
This article is completely misleading on the true history of Niven numbers or later renamed as harshad numbers. Niven talked about them and coined the phrase in a talk in 1977, while Cooper kennedy actually began discovering the details and proving them out in the early 1980's ... Proof below by references, it is easy to prove this page and even harshad and Niven's pages mentions as wrong in how they portray the minimal part of the two who made the original base proofs that allowed harshads work to be properly peer reviewed and proven out in the field of mathematics.

This is a good overview of the actual history with proper credit...

https://books.google.com/books?id=68g0Ds4FNM0C&lpg=PA627&ots=HSNdjLmTmS&dq=1977%20lecture%20niven%20numbers&pg=PA627#v=onepage&q=1977%20lecture%20niven%20numbers&f=false

1985 paper...

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijmms/1985/386824/abs/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=ms-android-google&espv=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&q=related:NAMSgw6QeWZQdM:scholar.google.com/

Articles which others reference correctly...

[2] Kennedy, R.E., Goodman, T., and Best, C., 1980, Mathematical discovery and Niven numbers, MATYC Journal, 14:21-25.

[3] Kennedy, R.E. and Cooper, C.N., 1984, On the natural density of the Niven numbers, College Mathematics Journal, 15:309-312.

[4] Saadatmanesh, M., Kennedy, R.E., and Cooper, C.N., 1992, Super Niven numbers, Mathematics in College, pp. 21-30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichriskennedy (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

11 is a Nivenmorphic number in base 10
The number 101010101010101010101 has digit sum 11 and divisible by 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.14.227.116 (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Estimaing the density of Harshad numbers
The c is explained, but what is the o in this formula? Just curious. N(x)=(c+o(1))\frac{x}{\log x} Genesyz (talk) 00:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Big O notation. Probably we should say that in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Even though "Harshad" is not a surname, this is practically always spelled with a capital H. Someone changed the article to lower-case h throughout. That should be reverted. Try a Google Books search for evidence. 2A00:23C5:FE18:2700:95A:4C62:344C:BE14 (talk) 07:13, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

about divisibility
quoting part of the definition, " integer that is divisible by the sum of its digits when written in that base." . Isn't it the case that, if  x/(sum_digits) is an integer in the given base,  then converting both x and the sum to any other base will also be integral? Cellocgw (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Turned digits for 10 and 11 in duodecimal?
Why are approximations for the turned digits used for duodecimal ten and eleven? It would be better to use the obvious choice of "" and "" for ten and eleven, respectively. Wouldn’t you think it would be good to make this change? 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:CC47:CFD0:245D:7739 (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 * I have now edited the page to use the d2 and d3 templates. 2601:C6:D200:E9B0:99AF:66D1:66A8:2912 (talk) 00:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Harshad number


text:
Schizophora

The Schizophora are a section of true flies containing 78 families, which are collectively referred to as muscoids, although technically the term "muscoid" should be limited to flies in the superfamily Muscoidea; this is an example of informal, historical usage persisting in the vernacular. The section is divided into two subsections, the Acalyptratae and Calyptratae, which are commonly referred to as acalyptrate muscoids and calyptrate muscoids, respectively.

The defining feature of the Schizophora is the presence of a special structure used to help the emerging adult fly break free of the puparium; this structure is an inflatable membranous sac called the ptilinum that protrudes from the face, above the antennae. The inflation of the ptilinum (using fluid hemolymph rather than air) creates pressure along the line of weakness in the puparium, which then bursts open along the seam to allow the adult to escape. When the adult emerges, the fluid is withdrawn, the ptilinum collapses, and the membrane retracts entirely back inside the head. The large, inverted, U-shaped suture in the face through which it came, however, is still quite visible, and the name "Schizophora" ("split-bearers") is derived from this ptilinal or frontal suture. The term was first used by Eduard Becher.

In contrast to eggs of other arthropods, most insect eggs are drought-resistant, because inside the maternal chorion, two additional membranes develop from embryonic tissue, the amnion and the serosa. This serosa secretes a cuticle rich in chitin that protects the embryo against desiccation. In the Schizophora, however, the serosa does not develop, but these flies lay their eggs in damp places, such as rotting organic matter.

The absence of schizophoran flies from Cretaceous rocks implies that they likely rapidly diversified during the Cenozoic, with the first appearance of the group during the early Paleogene.

title: Schizophora


text: User talk:81.137.41.90

title: User talk:81.137.41.90