text:
Klaus Kinkel

Klaus Kinkel (17 December 1936 – 4 March 2019) was a German statesman, civil servant, diplomat and lawyer who served as the minister of Foreign affairs (1992–1998) and the vice chancellor of Germany (1993–1998) in the government of Helmut Kohl.

Kinkel was a career civil servant and a longtime aide to Hans-Dietrich Genscher, and served as his personal secretary in the Federal Ministry of the Interior from 1970 and in senior roles in the Foreign Office from 1974. He was President of Federal Intelligence Service from 1979 to 1982 and a state secretary in the Federal Ministry of Justice from 1982 to 1991. In 1991 he was appointed as the Federal Minister of Justice and joined the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP) shortly after. In 1992 he became Foreign Minister, and in 1993 he also became the Vice Chancellor of Germany and the leader of the Free Democratic Party. He left the government in 1998 following its electoral defeat. Kinkel was a member of the Bundestag from 1994 to 2002, and was later active as a lawyer and philanthropist.

During his brief tenure as Minister of Justice he pressed for the extradition and criminal prosecution of deposed East German dictator Erich Honecker and sought to end the left-wing terrorism of the Red Army Faction. As Foreign Minister he is regarded as one of the most influential European politicians of the 1990s. He personified an "assertive foreign policy", increased Germany's peacekeeping engagements overseas, was at the forefront among Western leaders of building a relationship with Boris Yeltsin's newly democratic Russian Federation and pressed for Germany to be given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. He also championed the Maastricht Treaty, the merging of the Western European Union with the EU to give the EU an independent military capability and the expansion of the EU. Kinkel played a central role in the efforts to resolve the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, and proposed the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Education
Kinkel was born in Metzingen, Baden-Württemberg, into a Catholic family, and grew up mostly in Hechingen, where his father Ludwig Leonhard Kinkel practised as a medical doctor and internist. His father was President of the local tennis club, and Klaus Kinkel was an able tennis player in his youth. He took his Abitur at the Staatliches Gymnasium Hechingen in 1956 and first studied medicine, then law at the universities of Tübingen and Bonn. He joined A.V. Guestfalia Tübingen, a Catholic student fraternity that is a member of the Cartellverband. Kinkel took his first juristic state exam at Tübingen, the second in Stuttgart and earned a doctorate of law in 1964 in Cologne.

Career as a civil servant
In 1965, Kinkel began work at the Federal Ministry of the Interior, concentrating on the security of the civilian population (ziviler Bevölkerungsschutz). He was sent to the Landratsamt in Balingen, Baden-Württemberg until 1966. He returned to the national ministry in 1968. He was personal secretary and speechwriter for the Federal Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, from 1970 to 1974, and eventually the head of the minister's office. After Genscher was appointed Foreign Minister in 1974, Kinkel held senior positions in the Federal Foreign Office, as head of the Leitungsstab and the policy planning staff (Planungsstab).

President of the Federal Intelligence Service
From 1979 to 1982 he was president of the Federal Intelligence Service (BND). He is credited with "quietly and competently" restoring confidence in the BND after a series of scandal in the preceding years. He also expanded the BND's intelligence-gathering outside of Europe.

State secretary
From 1982 to 1991, Kinkel was a state secretary (Staatssekretär) in the Federal Ministry of Justice.

Federal Minister of Justice
Kinkel was Federal Minister of Justice from 18 January 1991 to 18 May 1992. Among other achievements, he took the lead in pressing for the return of Erich Honecker, the former East German leader, to face trial. He also engaged in public negotiations with the terrorist Red Army Faction, successfully urging them to renounce violence.

Minister of Foreign Affairs and FDP chairman
In a surprise decision on 29 April 1992, the members of the FDP parliamentary group rejected the nomination of Germany's designated new Foreign Minister, Irmgard Schwaetzer, and voted instead to name Kinkel to head the Federal Foreign Office.

Kinkel played a key role in the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and helped to draft its statutes. He also unsuccessfully introduced a resolution at a meeting of European Community foreign ministers that would have committed each of the member countries to accept more refugees from the Balkans. Later that year, he announced Germany's wish for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, arguing that Britain and France would never agree to an alternative plan under which they would merge their national seats into a single permanent seat representing the European Union. Kinkel was a signatory of the Dayton Agreement that ended the Bosnian War in 1995.

Under the leadership of Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Kinkel, the German Bundestag in 1993 agreed on a three-point amendment to the 1949 Constitution that for the first time let German troops take part in international peacekeeping operations sanctioned by the United Nations and other bodies, subject to advance approval by parliament. Shortly after, the German Parliament approved a controversial troop deployment under the umbrella of the United Nations Operation in Somalia II, clearing the final hurdle for what was then Germany's biggest deployment of ground forces abroad since World War II. Also under Kinkel’s leadership, Germany began destroying stockpiles of tanks and other heavy weapons in the early 1990s, becoming the first country to implement the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

In 1995, China dismissed a personal appeal from Kinkel to release Chinese dissident Wei Jingsheng and expelled journalist Henrik Bork, a reporter for the newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau. One year later, China abruptly canceled a planned visit to Beijing by Kinkel, citing a German parliamentary resolution that condemned China's human rights record in Tibet.

A strong supporter of European integration, Kinkel successfully advocated for Germany to ratify the Maastricht Treaty on European political and economic union in December 1992, making it the 10th of the 12 European Community nations to sign on. In 1994, he had to abandon his candidate for President of the European Commission, Prime Minister Jean-Luc Dehaene of Belgium, following protest by British Prime Minister John Major. In 1997, he argued that Turkey did not qualify because of its record on "human rights, the Kurdish question, relations with Greece and of course very clear economic questions." On Kinkel’s initiative, Germany became the first government to declare a suspension of contacts with Bosnia's envoys abroad after a recommendation made by the High Representative of the International Community in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Carlos Westendorp.

From 21 January 1993, Kinkel was also Vice Chancellor of Germany. From 1993 to 1995 he also served as chairman of the FDP. After the Free Democrats won barely enough votes to get into the Bundestag in 1994 and later lost badly in 12 out of 14 state and European Parliament elections, Kinkel announced that he would not seek re-election as party chairman. He resigned as Foreign Minister and Vice Chancellor after the government's defeat in the 1998 federal election.

Member of Parliament
Kinkel was a member of the Bundestag, the Parliament of Germany, from 1994 to 2002.

Life after politics
After leaving government in 1998, Kinkel worked as a lawyer and was engaged in a number of philanthropic and business activities, including the following:
 * Bundesliga Foundation, Member of the Board of Trustees
 * Sepp Herberger Foundation, Member of the Board of Trustees
 * International Club La Redoute Bonn, Member of the Advisory Board
 * United Nations Association of Germany (DGVN), Member of the Presidium
 * Deutsche Initiative für den Nahen Osten (DINO), Member of the Board of Trustees
 * Lehman Brothers, Member of European Advisory Council (since 2002)
 * Deutsche Telekom Foundation, Founding Chairman of the Executive Board (2003–2014)
 * EnBW, Member of the Advisory Board (2004–09)

At the request of Chancellor Angela Merkel, Kinkel represented the German government at the 2011 funeral of Sultan bin Abdulaziz, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

In November 2016, Kinkel was elected as president of a newly created ethics commission of the German Football Association (DFB); the commission is part of the DFB's declared drive for more transparency and integrity following revelations of a financial scandal around the 2006 FIFA World Cup it hosted.

Publication

 * "Bewegte Zeiten für Europa!", in: Robertson-von Trotha, Caroline Y. (ed.): Europa in der Welt – die Welt in Europa (= Kulturwissenschaft interdisziplinär/Interdisciplinary Studies on Culture and Society, Vol. 1), Baden-Baden 2006, ISBN 978-3-8329-1934-4

title: Klaus Kinkel


text:
User:Lowellian/List template

This is a list of ???.

 * List of ???:
 * See also

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

title: User:Lowellian/List template


text:
The Twelfth Man

The Twelfth Man (also known as The 12th Man) is the name for a series of comedy productions by Australian satirist Billy Birmingham. Birmingham, a skilled impersonator, is generally known for parodying Australian sports commentators' voices. As befits the name (a reference to the non-playing reserve in an eleven-player cricket side), Birmingham focused in particular on cricket commentators such as Richie Benaud, Bill Lawry, Ian Chappell and Tony Greig. This is also because many of Australia's cricket commentators have distinctive and easily identifiable voices and accents.

The album parodies are designed as a comical look "behind the scenes" of the Nine Network's cricket commentary. Birmingham traditionally plays all the roles (with the exception of Ken Sutcliffe, who played himself; and some minor female characters, such as Richie Benaud's secretary). Benaud himself sent a critique of each CD to Birmingham and was known to have a mixed opinion of the recordings, due predominantly to Birmingham's use of profanity. All albums were produced and engineered by David Frogatt.

The Twelfth Man is the only Australian recording artist in history to have seven consecutive number one albums. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 22 November 2009, Birmingham announced that Boned! would be his last studio album as The Twelfth Man.

Personalities parodied
In addition to Richie Benaud himself, Bill Lawry, Ian Chappell and Tony Greig, the 12th Man features various other Australian commentators from throughout Channel Nine's line-up. They include Max Walker, Mark "Tubby" Taylor, Ian's brother Greg Chappell, Michael "Slats" Slater, Englishman Mark Nicholas and West Indian Michael Holding.

Several non-cricket commentators are also parodied by Birmingham. They include rugby league commentators Ray "Rabbits" Warren and Paul "Fatty" Vautin, Peter "Sterlo" Sterling, Steve Roach, Darrell Eastlake, Lou Richards, Jack "Supercoach" Gibson, Ian "Bear" Maurice, Mike "Gibbo" Gibson and horse racing commentator Ken Callander.

Other figures from Australian culture are also parodied. They include media magnate and Channel Nine owner Kerry Packer, former prime minister John Howard, journalist Mike Munro and talkback radio personality Alan Jones.

Comic themes
Productions tend to focus on two themes: the voices and personalities of the commentators themselves, and parodies of athletes' names. This includes both humorous modifications of real-life players, as well as purely fictional names. Virtually all sports and teams are subject to this, except for the Australian cricket team.

Names of Indian cricket team and Pakistani cricket team are the most commonly parodied. For example, Sunil Gavaskar is referred to as Sunil Haveascar, a humorous reference to his fictional teammate "Cuthis Arminhalf" (a reference to Mohinder Amarnath). New Zealand cricket team players' names are sometimes parodied, as are those of the England cricket team. The Australian cricket team is never parodied on the basis of their names, but humorous references still extend to other aspects of the team, in particular Bruce Reid who is called "Breece Rude" by Bill Lawry and who, at one stage, slips over and snaps in half before taping himself back together to resume playing (Reid was known throughout his career for being tall and thin and susceptible to injury).

Humor even extends to the names of umpires and team coaches.

Voices and personalities
The Twelfth Man is most well known for Birmingham's impression of the main characters voices, as well as their unique personalities and styles on air. These parodies include:
 * Richie Benaud is the leader of the Central Commentary Team, and often remarks that "We work as a team, and we do it my way". There is focus on his famous pronunciation of the number two to sound like "chew", with the number two being a very popular term in the series. His fashion sense is also a point of humor, as Benaud's jackets of choice are either cream, white, off-white, ivory, bone or beige. Benaud also has a vineyard in France, "Chateau Verda Flore" managed by a Frenchman named Henri Porte. A very proud man, Benaud is often mistaken for Darrell Eastlake, much to Benaud's chagrin.
 * Bill Lawry is another main character, usually presenting with his colleague Tony Greig. Lawry has a relatively high-pitched and nasally voice, with many jokes coming at the expense of his large nose. Lawry is from Victoria and is extremely biased towards Victorian players, venues and crowds. He has a particular affection for fellow Victorians Merv Hughes, Dean Jones and Shane Warne, as well as his collection of racing pigeons. His common expressions include "Got him, yes! Piss off! You're out!" and "The tension, the drama, the buzz, the crowd, the atmosphere!" Lawry is also frequently late for team meetings, much to Benaud's chagrin.
 * Tony Greig is Lawry's sparring partner, and often are the first two commentators of the game. A native of South Africa, Greig has a thick South African accent and is ridiculed for his heavily accented pronunciation of words like "off", "half", "broadcast". Greig carries out the pitch reports before each game, and is famous for sticking foreign objects into the pitch—usually his car keys but occasionally his Italian loafers and even a fountain pen belonging to Richie. These items often get stuck in the pitch, leading to much aggravation with the rest of the team. Greig is a relatively neutral commentator but does display a certain allegiance to South African teams.
 * The Chappell brothers of Ian and Greg typically work as a pair. They are known for their calm, non-controversial demeanors.
 * Max Walker is portrayed as a maniacal and unhinged personality. With his own distinct tones, Max is often caught not paying attention to the goings-on on the field. Having been sacked early in the series, many of Walker's hijinx involve his attempts to re-join the commentary team. These include the changing of his name by deed poll to Mike Walker, his kidnapping of fellow commentator Ken Sutcliffe to guarantee his own success, and his takeover of the commentary box (by force) with Benaud held hostage.
 * Darrell Eastlake is shown as an over-the-top and exuberant personality, which does not always sit well with Richie. Eastlake finds it hard to contain his own excitement, as his voice will rise to a fever pitch during the announcement of a simple play or event. Despite having virtually no similarities in voice or appearance with Benaud, they are often mistaken for each other.
 * Ken Sutcliffe, known as the Male Model from Mudgee, is actually voiced by Sutcliffe himself. Considerable humor is dedicated to Sutcliffe's handsome features, and is seen as being a hit with the ladies—including the wives of both Benaud and Walker. When it is announced he is a possible addition to the commentary team, Sutcliffe is kidnapped by Max Walker in order to guarantee Walker's own successes.

Other appearances
During the 2005–06 Australian cricket season, the free online cricket game Stick Cricket featured commentary from The 12th Man. This was returned for the 2006–07 series and included an interview with The 12th Man by Stick Cricket fans. It features some new lines such as "And welcome back to the SCG or the MCG or the Gabba or the WACA or wherever the hell we are" and classic lines like "Got him, yes! Piss off, you're out!"

On 8 December 2006, the Twelfth Man was a guest radio DJ on Triple M for several hours choosing the music, providing comments and playing clips from Boned!

Following
The 12th Man has a large following all around the world. Outside Australia, the UK probably has the most fans, with South Africa a very close second. Albums have been learned by heart by many, and Billy Birmingham is often greeted with impressions of his work. There are large groups petitioning for a new album, but Birmingham is reluctant, as his main star, Richie Benaud, had announced his retirement (eclipsed by Benaud's death on 10 April 2015), with newer commentators taking the fore.

ARIA Music Awards
The ARIA Music Awards is an annual event since 1987 celebrating Australian music and recognising outstanding artistic and technical achievements in the recording field. The Twelfth Man has won four awards.

title: The Twelfth Man


text:
Hover

Hover may refer to:

 * Levitation, the process by which an object or person is suspended by a physical force against gravitation without solid physical contact
 * Hover (behaviour), to remain stationary or float in the air, exhibited by some winged animals

Computing

 * Hover (domain registrar)
 * Mouse hover or mouseover, a gesture made with the pointer in computer user interfaces

Transport

 * Hover (helicopter), nearly stationary flight in a helicopter
 * Hovercraft, vehicles capable of traveling and being stationary over land, water, mud or ice
 * Hovertrain, a type of high-speed train
 * Great Wall Hover, a Sport utility vehicle produced by Great Wall Motors
 * Johan E. Høver, a Norwegian aircraft designer, most noted for the Høver M.F. 11

Other uses

 * Hover (EP), a 2005 EP by Hair Peace Salon
 * Hover (film), a 2018 American science fiction film
 * Hover Chamber Choir, an Armenian choir
 * Hover!, a computer game for Microsoft Windows
 * A partial squatting position often used by women to urinate without sitting

title: Hover


text:
Talk:Hover

I would not say "hover" and "levitation" are synonyms. If I see a helicopter stationary in the air, I don't say "It's levitating". Gwimpey 23:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. good point. but you COULD and it wouldn't really be wrong. :-) i don't know.  i guess they are not exactly synonyms.  do you think "hover" warrants its own article though?

Some definitions from the web:

 * Levitate:
 * To rise or cause to rise into the air and float in apparent defiance of gravity.
 * To make buoyant; to cause to float in the air; as, to levitate a table.
 * To rise, or tend to rise, as if lighter than the surrounding medium; to become buoyant; -- opposed to gravitate.
 * be suspended in the air [syn: hover]
 * be suspended in the air, as if in defiance of gravity.

 * Hover:
 * To remain floating, suspended, or fluttering in the air: gulls hovering over the waves.
 * The act or state of hovering: 'a helicopter in hover.'
 * To hang fluttering in the air, or on the wing; to remain in flight or floating about or over a place or object; to be suspended in the air above something.
 * 3: hand in the air; fly or be suspended above 4: be suspended in the air [syn: levitate]

- Omegatron 13:37, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hover


text:
Unified Thread Standard

The Unified Thread Standard (UTS) defines a standard thread form and series—along with allowances, tolerances, and designations—for screw threads commonly used in the United States and Canada. It is the main standard for bolts, nuts, and a wide variety of other threaded fasteners used in these countries. It has the same 60° profile as the ISO metric screw thread, but the characteristic dimensions of each UTS thread (outer diameter and pitch) were chosen as an inch fraction rather than a millimeter value. The UTS is currently controlled by ASME/ANSI in the United States.

Basic profile

Each thread in the series is characterized by its major diameter Dmaj and its pitch, P. UTS threads consist of a symmetric V-shaped thread. In any plane containing the thread axis, the flanks of the V have an angle of 60° to each other. The outermost $1/8$ and the innermost $1/4$ of the height H of the V-shape are cut off from the profile.

The major diameter Dmaj is the diameter of the screw measured from the outer edge of the threads. The minor diameter Dmin (also known as the root diameter) is the diameter of the screw measured from the inner edge of the threads. The major diameter may be slightly different from the shank diameter, which is the diameter of the unthreaded part of the screw. The diameters are sometimes given approximately in fractions of an inch (e.g. the major diameter of a #6 screw is 0.1380 in, approximately $9/64$ in = 0.140625 in).

The pitch P is the distance between thread peaks. For UTS threads, which are single-start threads, it is equal to the lead, the axial distance that the screw advances during a 360° rotation. UTS threads do not usually use the pitch parameter; instead a parameter known as threads per inch (TPI) is used, which is the reciprocal of the pitch.

The relationship between the height H and the pitch P is found using the following equation where $$\theta$$ is half the included angle of the thread, in this case 30 degrees:

$$H = \frac{ {1}}{2\tan \theta} \cdot P = \frac{ \sqrt 3 }{2} \cdot P \approx 0.866025 \cdot P$$

or

$$P = 2\tan\theta\cdot H = \frac{2}{\sqrt 3} \cdot H \approx 1.154701 \cdot H.$$

In an external (male) thread (e.g., on a bolt), the major diameter Dmaj and the minor diameter Dmin define maximum dimensions of the thread. This means that the external thread must end flat at Dmaj, but can be rounded out below the minor diameter Dmin. Conversely, in an internal (female) thread (e.g., in a nut), the major and minor diameters are minimum dimensions, therefore the thread profile must end flat at Dmin but may be rounded out beyond Dmaj. These provisions are to prevent any interferences.

The minor diameter Dmin and effective pitch diameter Dp are derived from the major diameter and pitch as:

$$\begin{align} D_\text{min} &= D_\text{maj} - 2\cdot\frac58\cdot H = D_\text{maj} - \frac{ 5 {\sqrt 3}}{8}\cdot P \approx D_\text{maj} - 1.082532 \cdot P \\ D_\text{p} &= D_\text{maj} - 2\cdot\frac38\cdot H = D_\text{maj} - \frac{ 3 {\sqrt 3}}{8}\cdot P \approx D_\text{maj} - 0.649519 \cdot P. \end{align}$$

Designation
The standard designation for a UTS thread is a number indicating the nominal (major) diameter of the thread, followed by the pitch measured in threads per inch. For diameters smaller than $1⁄4$ inch, the diameter is indicated by an integer number defined in the standard; for all other diameters, the inch figure is given.

This number pair is optionally followed by the letters UNC, UNF or UNEF (Unified) if the diameter-pitch combination is from the coarse, fine, or extra fine series, and may also be followed by a tolerance class.

Example: #6-32 UNC 2B (major diameter: 0.1380 inch, pitch: 32 tpi)

The following formula is used to calculate the major diameter of a numbered screw greater than or equal to 0: Major diameter = Screw # × 0.013 in + 0.060 in. For example, the major diameter of a #10 screw is 10 × 0.013 in + 0.060 in = 0.190 in. To calculate the major diameter of "aught" size screws count the number of extra zeroes and multiply this number by 0.013 in and subtract from 0.060 in. For example, the major diameter of a #0000 screw is 0.060 in − (3 × 0.013 in) = 0.060 in − 0.039 in = 0.021 in.

The number series of machine screws has been extended downward to include #00-90 (0.047 in = 0.060 in − 0.013 in) and #000-120 (0.034 in = 0.060 in − 2 × 0.013 in) screws; however, the main standard for screws smaller than #0 is ANSI/ASME standard B1.10 Unified Miniature Screw Threads. This defines a series of metric screws named after their major diameters in millimetres, from 0.30 UNM to 1.40 UNM. Preferred sizes are 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 mm, with additional defined sizes halfway between. The standard thread pitch is approximately $3⁄64$ of the major diameter. The thread form is slightly modified to increase the minor diameter, and thus the strength of screws and taps. The major diameter still extends to within $3⁄16$H of the theoretical sharp V, but the total depth of the thread is reduced 4% from $1⁄4$H = $7⁄32$ cos(30°) P ≈ 0.541P to 0.52P. This increases the amount of the theoretical sharp V which is cut off at the minor diameter by 10% from 0.25H to $5⁄16$ − $9⁄32$ ≈ 0.27456H.

The number series of machine screws once included more odd numbers and went up to #16 or more. Standardization efforts in the late 19th and the early part of the 20th century reduced the range of sizes considerably. Now, it is less common to see machine screws larger than #14, or odd number sizes other than #1, #3 and #5. Even though #14 and #16 screws are still available, they are not as common as sizes #0 through #12.

Sometimes "special" diameter and pitch combinations (UNS) are used, for example a 0.619 in major diameter with 20 threads per inch. UNS threads are rarely used for bolts, but rather on nuts, tapped holes, and threaded ODs. Because of this UNS taps are readily available. Most UNS threads have more threads per inch than the correlating UNF or UNEF standard; therefore they are often the strongest thread available. Because of this they are often used in applications where high stresses are encountered, such as machine tool spindles or automotive spindles.

Gauging
A screw thread gauging system comprises a list of screw thread characteristics that must be inspected to establish the dimensional acceptability of the screw threads on a threaded product and the gauge(s) which shall be used when inspecting those characteristics.

Currently this gauging for UTS is controlled by:

 * ASME/ANSI B1.2-1983 Gauges And Gauging For Unified Inch Screw Threads: This Standard provides essential specifications and dimensions for the gauges used on Unified inch screw threads UN [unified] and UNR [external threads only] thread form, and covers the specifications and dimensions for the thread gauges and measuring equipment listed in Tables 1 and 2. The basic purpose and use of each gauge are also described.
 * ASME/ANSI B1.3-2007 Screw Thread Gauging Systems for Acceptability : Inch and Metric Screw Threads (UN, UNR, UNJ, M, and MJ): 1. This Standard presents screw thread gauging systems suitable for determining the acceptability of Unified [UN], UNR [external threads only], UNJ [internal and external threads], M, and MJ screw threads on externally and internally threaded products. It establishes the criteria for screw thread acceptance when a gauging system is used.

2. A screw thread gauging system comprises a list of screw thread characteristics that must be inspected to establish the dimensional acceptability of the screw threads on a threaded product and the gauge(s) which shall be used when inspecting those characteristics.

3. Federal Government Use. When this Standard is approved by the Department of Defense and federal agencies and is incorporated into Federal Standard-H28/20 [FED-STD-H28/20], Screw Thread Standards for Federal Services, Section 20, the use of this Standard by the federal government is subject to all the requirements and limitations of Federal Standard-H28/20 [FED-STD-H28/20].

These standards provide essential specifications and dimensions for the gauges used on Unified inch screw threads (UN, UNR, UNJ thread form) on externally and internally threaded products. It also covers the specifications and dimensions for the thread gauges and measuring equipment. The basic purpose and use of each gauge are also described. It also establishes the criteria for screw thread acceptance when a gauging system is used.

Tolerance classes
A classification system exists for ease of manufacture and interchangeability of fabricated threaded items. Most (but certainly not all) threaded items are made to a classification standard called the Unified Screw Thread Standard Series. This system is analogous to the fits used with assembled parts.

 * Class 1 threads are loose fit, intended for ease of assembly or use in a dirty environment.
 * Class 2 threads are free fit, and the most common. They are designed to maximize strength considering typical machine shop capability and machine practice.
 * Class 3 threads are medium fit, still quite common and used for closer tolerances on high quality work.
 * Class 4 threads previously designated a close fit for even tighter tolerances, but this classification is now obsolete.
 * Class 5 fit is an interference thread, requiring the use of a wrench for turning. These can be seen in applications like spring shackles on an automobile.

The letter suffix "A" or "B" denotes whether the threads are external or internal, respectively. Classes 1A, 2A, 3A apply to external threads; Classes 1B, 2B, 3B apply to internal threads.

Thread class refers to the acceptable range of pitch diameter for any given thread. The pitch diameter is indicated as Dp in the figure shown above. There are several methods that are used to measure the pitch diameter. The most common method used in production is by way of a go/no-go gauge.

Related standards

 * ASME/ANSI B1.1  – 2019 Unified Inch Screw Threads, UN, UNR, & UNJ Thread Form
 * ASME/ANSI B1.10M – 2004 Unified Miniature Screw Threads

title: Unified Thread Standard


text:
Digital Divide Network

The Digital Divide Network (DDN) is an online community of activists, policymakers, researchers and concerned citizens interested in sharing knowledge to help bridge the digital divide. It is a spinoff of Helping.org (Helping.org later changed its name to Network for Good). TakingITGlobal in Toronto, Ontario, Canada produces and coordinates DDN.

History
DDN was originally launched as the Digital Divide Clearinghouse in October 1999. The Clearinghouse was a section of a larger web portal called Helping.org. Launched by the AOL Foundation, the Benton Foundation, the National Urban League and other institutions, Helping.org was dedicated to volunteerism, technology capacity building for nonprofits and charitable giving. Two months after the website was launched, Bill Clinton hosted a national Digital Divide Summit in Washington D.C. During the meeting, representatives from civil society and the private sector met with Clinton; soon, the idea was hatched to create a new national Web portal dedicated to bridging the digital divide. This decision led to the Digital Divide Clearinghouse spinning off from Helping.org to become a new website, The Digital Divide Network, which was launching in December 1999 by the Benton Foundation.

DDN has become a leading website for organizations interested in sharing news, research and other resources to help bridge the digital divide. The site has become more international as well, with users from more than 75 countries. In February 2004, the site and its senior staff relocated to Massachusetts to move their operation to the Education Development Center (EDC), as part of the creation of a new institute called the EDC Center for Media & Community. DDN was then managed by director Andy Carvin. Cedar Pruitt served as website editor from April 2004 until September 2005. DDN is managed by TakingITGlobal.org, the Toronto-based NGO that redesigned the website in 2004. Andy Carvin is no longer directly involved in the website, though he continues to moderate the group's email discussion list.

title: Digital Divide Network


text:
Talk:Wicket

Wicket v pitch
Why is 'wicket' been given as secondary to the word 'pitch', even if the term 'wicket' is officially incorrect it is universally used, I have never heard the 'wicket' referred to as a 'pitch'!

 * I think you may be confused. The section saying that 'wicket' is sometimes used to refer to the pitch means that the word 'wicket' is sometimes used to refer to the mown strip of grass, not that the set of stumps and bails is incorrectly referred to as a 'wicket' and is really a 'pitch'. -dmmaus 23:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this here from Wicket (cricket) in accordance with Wikipedia page naming guidelines, since nothing was at Wicket, and I can't see anything ever being put there except a redirect to this anyway. This will also save us all from having to type "wicket (cricket)|" inside our links all the time... dmmaus 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Request for Images
Some images of what a wicket looks like might be helpful. --Sgeo | Talk 20:41, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There's a mention in the Brian Close article about Melbourne vs English wickets, which apparently are (were) slightly different. Anybody know about this? 66.68.106.103 04:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * In that sense, wicket refers to the cricket pitch, not the stumps, so it's simply a reference to the differing conditions on Melbourne grounds. Precisely what differences existed at that particular time I don't know. Loganberry (Talk) 00:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dismissing a batsman
"For a batsman to be dismissed by being bowled, run out, stumped or hit wicket, his wicket needs to be put down. What this means is defined by Law 28 of the Laws of cricket. The wicket is put down if a bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps, or a stump is struck out of the ground by the (etc)"

This is a bit confusing. Isn't it redundant? I mean the part "a bail is completely removed or a stump is struck out of ground". It looks to me that if any stump is struck out there's no way that both bails would still be "on"; at least one of them falls. The confusion grows further with the next sentence: "If one bail is off, removing the remaining bail or striking or pulling any of the three stumps (etc)". What's the point of removing the second bail if one, as per first statement, is needed to dismiss a batesman? Or the first sentence should be "The wicket is put down if both bails are completely removed from the top of the stumps or (etc)" Roofred (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Speaking as someone who only knows cricket cursorily (and is literally learning how cricket works via Wikipedia), I don't find these statements to be redundant or confusing, as they appears to say that a) a stump falling over constitutes a dismissal in and of itself (even if the bails were somehow glued on), and b) in the event one bail is knocked down accidentally, knocking the other bail down legally is sufficient for a dismissal. Am I on the right track? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If you literally learned how it works from Wikipedia why would you ask on Wikipedia if your knowledge is "on the right track"? And why did you need Wikipedia instead of the "Laws of Cricket" since the entire article references the "Laws of Cricket" even though it isn't cited? 18:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Laws of Cricket...
Are these "laws" published somewhere? They're referenced when describing a "wicket" and the dimensions and measurements of its individual components but the "standards" themselves seem incomplete and vague. There is a length and height given for the "stumps" and they're "wooden", but there is nothing about the type of wood allowed, the consistency and makeup of the ground they're driven into, etc. An "overall width" of 9 inches "across" the stumps is claimed, but there is nothing in the article about the diameter of the stumps. What are referred to as "balls" and are placed across the tops of the stumps aren't spherical at all and there could be confusion when actual balls are also involved.

Surely there are plenty of copies of the "Laws of Cricket" out there and Wikipedia material and articles are supposed to be thoroughly referenced and cited back to reliable sources. Why is this article so vague in so many ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rules: What is necessary to put a wicket "down"?
The article is rather unclear about declaring a wicket as "down". It reads "A wicket is put down if: A [i. e. at least one] bail is completely removed from the top of the stumps …". But in the following paragraph it reads "Special situations: If [only] one bail is off, removing the remaining bail or striking or pulling any stump out of the ground is sufficient to put the wicket down." What is the rule now? The first (at least one bail removed) or the second (one bail and a stump removed)? And if it is the second one: does it make any difference if both bails are off? Robbit (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wicket


text:
Talk:The Twelfth Man

Untitled
Maybe the 12th Man page should be made disamb giving pointers to both the school or this series? --Vikingstad 23:38, May 19, 2004 (UTC) "Benaud himself is known to have a very low opinion of the recordings, due predominantly to Birmingham's use of profanity." - does anyone have a source on this? I never got the impression that his opinion of it was "very low", rather that he took it with good humour with the caveat that he didn't approve of the language. Ramanpotential 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Ihave the cover for Wierd World of Sports, biut it's much too large to scan. For a long long time I've thought/known Benaud doesn't think much of Billy Birmingham's efforts, but whether this is fact or whether I'm just subscribing to an urban myth is next to impossible to tell. I have a very vague memory of him making a throwaway comment about it on TV but I'm guessing this will be impossible to source. Travisbasevi 03:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In an interview from around the time of the Final Dig, Billy said that Richie sends him a handwritten critique of each record following its release, with one of Richie's main complaints being the profanity used. I don't remember anything in that interview of Richie not enjoying the record (or on the contrary either).  R o  gerthat  Talk  13:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at this interview here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2001/aug/06/cricket.comment2 : "I have various problems with what Billy does; to do with sniggering at Asian names, we could do without that. And we could do without the swearing. Rory Bremner I have no problem with, he is a satirist and a very funny one too." 130.225.26.33 (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sales
I've heard the the original "Wired World of Sports" held/holds the record for the largest sales in Australia by and Australian artist. Any record of this? - SimonLyall 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Likewise the very first release "It's Just Not Cricket" in 1984 achieved some remarkable sales but doesn't rate a mention here.

Marvellous
Why is there no mention of the song "Marvellous"? I might add this later... maybed do a bit of research in to when it was released, highest chart position, etc. GK1 18:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be added MxAesir 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On Boned! Birmingham mentions through Gudinksi that Marvellous went to number 1. There's the version from Still the 12th Man that was released in the 92/93 season but I have another single version of the song that mentions "season 91/92".  R o  gerthat  Talk  13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bruce 2000.jpg
Image:Bruce 2000.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Twelfth or 12th?
I have never heard it referred to as the "Twelfth Man" it's generally only the "12th Man."

My recommendation is to change the title unless someone can show me where it is actually called Twelfth man.--Deansherr (talk) 00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(chriswaltham) I agree, although I'm not going to be the one to change the name. I have the box set and it's written "The 12th Man" on the covers, inserts, credits etc., never as "The Twelfth Man" Chris (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

12th Man Scripts?
Does anyone know if there are any scripts available for the 12th Man series? I have the cd's for each release but was wondering if all of the words/scripts are available to download or copy from another website somewhere?

Hope somebody can help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeBT (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Racism
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned that Birmingham's jokes about teams from the sub continent are borderline racist. He regularly refers to members of the Pakistan team as p*k*s. I'm surprised that people have such a lax attitude to this casual racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.174.3 (talk) 12:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I know I'm replying to a post from six years ago, but I thought I'd shed some light in case anyone else considers this idea. The word "Paki" is not to my knowledge considered racist (casual or otherwise) in Australia - and it certainly wasn't in the 1980s when there was no World Wide Web for us to get an idea of what other cultures might view as offensive or otherwise. The word was used as the Pakistani version of "Aussie" for Australian or "Windies" for the West Indies. Australians attach the diminutive form to all sorts of things and it seemed only natural. Benson & Hedges World Series Cup ads regularly refered to the Pakis and the Poms or the Windies. If the use of the term has gone out of vogue today it's because people are now more informed about sensibilities in other countries

 * Here's an ad for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiihZCcYe5M

 * Mandurahmike (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Additions
I've added a bunch of stuff about the characters parodied, and why. Chris (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Twelfth Man


text:
Talk:Cypress Semiconductor

Wrong hyperlink
In the "===2016===" section of the article, the hyperlink associated with the Hassane El-Khoury name points to the Onsemi company instead of the Wikipedia article about Hassane El-Khoury. Początkujacy 2 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cypress Semiconductor


text:
Aban (disambiguation)

Aban is the Avestan language term for "the waters", used in Zoroastrian doctrine.

Aban may also refer to:
 * Aban (month), eighth month of the Solar Hijri calendar
 * Aba (people), an ethnic group of Siberia

Places

 * Aban, Russia, a rural locality (a settlement) in Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia
 * Aban (river), a river in Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia
 * Aban (crater), a crater on Mars, named after Aban, Russia

Other uses

 * Aban (name), notable people with the surname or given name
 * Aban number, a number written in English without the letter A
 * Aban Air, call sign ABAN, see Airline codes-A

title: Aban (disambiguation)


text:
User:Metsfan001

14-year-old Mets Fan from NYC.

title: User:Metsfan001


text:
Mortification

Mortification can refer to:
 * Mortification (theology), theological doctrine
 * Mortification of the flesh, religious practice of corporal mortification
 * Mortification of self, personality disruption experienced by individuals in a total institution or settings with similar characteristics
 * Mortification in Roman Catholic teaching, Roman Catholic doctrine of mortification
 * Mortification (band), a Christian extreme metal band
 * Extreme embarrassment
 * Mortification (album)

title: Mortification


text:
Henry IV, Part 2

Henry IV, Part 2 is a history play by William Shakespeare believed to have been written between 1596 and 1599. It is the third part of a tetralogy, preceded by Richard II and Henry IV, Part 1 and succeeded by Henry V.

The play is often seen as an extension of aspects of Henry IV, Part 1, rather than a straightforward continuation of the historical narrative, placing more emphasis on the highly popular character of Falstaff and introducing other comic figures as part of his entourage, including Ancient Pistol, Doll Tearsheet, and Justice Robert Shallow. Several scenes specifically parallel episodes in Part 1.

Characters
Of the King's party
 * King Henry IV
 * Prince Hal – later King Henry V
 * Prince John of Lancaster – Henry's son
 * Duke of Gloucester – Henry's son
 * Duke of Clarence – Henry's son
 * Earl of Warwick
 * Earl of Surrey
 * Earl of Westmorland
 * Harcourt
 * Sir John Blunt

Rebels Court
 * Archbishop of York
 * Lord Bardolph
 * Lord Mowbray – Earl Marshal
 * Ralph Hastings
 * John Colleville
 * Earl of Northumberland
 * Lady Northumberland – Northumberland's wife
 * Lady Percy – widow of Henry 'Hotspur' Percy, Northumberland's son
 * Travers – Northumberland's servant
 * Morton – messenger
 * Lord Chief Justice
 * Servant
 * Gower – messenger
 * Beadle
 * Two Grooms

Eastcheap
 * John Falstaff
 * Falstaff's Page
 * Bardolph
 * Ancient Pistol
 * Ned Poins
 * Peto
 * Mistress Quickly – hostess of the tavern
 * Dorothy "Doll" Tearsheet – prostitute
 * Francis – drawer at tavern
 * William – drawer at tavern

Recruits
 * Ralph Mouldy
 * Simon Shadow
 * Thomas Wart
 * Francis Feeble
 * Peter Bullcalf

Other
 * Rumour
 * Epilogue
 * Robert Shallow – country justice
 * Silence – country justice
 * Davy – Shallow's servant
 * Snare – sergeant
 * Fang – sergeant
 * Messengers, musicians, soldiers, attendants, etc.

Mentioned
 * Sir John Umfreville
 * Master Dommellton, a milliner
 * Ursula, former paramour of John Falstaff
 * Fauconbridge (ghost character)
 * Master Smooth
 * Goodwife Keech
 * Nell Poins, sister of Ned
 * Sneak, band leader (may have been an actual Renaissance band leader)
 * Master Tisick, a deputy
 * Master Dumbe, a minister
 * Blunt (ghost character)
 * William Silence, Justice Silence's son at university
 * Kent (ghost character)

Synopsis
The play picks up where Henry IV, Part 1 left off. Its focus is on Prince Hal's journey toward kingship, and his ultimate rejection of Falstaff. However, unlike Part One, Hal's and Falstaff's stories are almost entirely separate, as the two characters meet only twice and very briefly. The tone of much of the play is elegiac, focusing on Falstaff's age and his closeness to death, which parallels that of the increasingly sick king. Falstaff is still drinking and engaging in petty criminality in the London underworld. He first appears followed by a new character, a young page whom Prince Hal has assigned him as a joke. Falstaff enquires what the doctor has said about the analysis of his urine, and the page cryptically informs him that the urine is healthier than the patient. Falstaff delivers one of his most characteristic lines: "I am not only witty in myself, but the cause that wit is in other men." Falstaff promises to outfit the page in "vile apparel" (ragged clothing). He then complains of his insolvency, blaming it on "consumption of the purse." They go off, Falstaff vowing to find a wife "in the stews" (i.e., the local brothels).

The Lord Chief Justice enters, looking for Falstaff. Falstaff at first feigns deafness in order to avoid conversing with him, and when this tactic fails pretends to mistake him for someone else. As the Chief Justice attempts to question Falstaff about a recent robbery, Falstaff insists on turning the subject of the conversation to the nature of the illness afflicting the King. He then adopts the pretense of being a much younger man than the Chief Justice: "You that are old consider not the capacities of us that are young." Finally, he asks the Chief Justice for one thousand pounds to help outfit a military expedition, but is denied.

He has a relationship with Doll Tearsheet, a prostitute, who gets into a fight with Ancient Pistol, Falstaff's ensign. After Falstaff ejects Pistol, Doll asks him about the Prince. Falstaff is embarrassed when his derogatory remarks are overheard by Hal, who is present disguised as a musician. Falstaff tries to talk his way out of it, but Hal is unconvinced. When news of a second rebellion arrives, Falstaff joins the army again, and goes to the country to raise forces. There he encounters an old school friend, Justice Shallow, and they reminisce about their youthful follies. Shallow brings forward potential recruits for the loyalist army: Mouldy, Bullcalf, Feeble, Shadow and Wart, a motley collection of rustic yokels. Falstaff and his cronies accept bribes from two of them, Mouldy and Bullcalf, not to be conscripted.

In the other storyline, Hal remains an acquaintance of London lowlife and seems unsuited to kingship. His father, King Henry IV is again disappointed in the young prince because of that, despite reassurances from the court. Another rebellion is launched against Henry IV, but this time it is defeated, not by a battle, but by the duplicitous political machinations of Hal's brother, Prince John. King Henry then sickens and appears to die. Hal, seeing this, believes he is King and exits with the crown. King Henry, awakening, is devastated, thinking Hal cares only about becoming King. Hal convinces him otherwise and the old king subsequently dies contentedly.

The two story-lines meet in the final scene, in which Falstaff, having learned from Pistol that Hal is now King, travels to London in expectation of great rewards. But Hal rejects him, saying that he has now changed, and can no longer associate with such people. The London lowlifes, expecting a paradise of thieves under Hal's governance, are instead purged and imprisoned by the authorities.

Epilogue
At the end of the play, an epilogue thanks the audience and promises that the story will continue in a forthcoming play "with Sir John in it, and make you merry with fair Katharine of France; where, for all I know, Falstaff shall die of a sweat". In fact, Falstaff does not appear on stage in the subsequent play, Henry V, although his death is referred to. The Merry Wives of Windsor does have "Sir John in it", but cannot be the play referred to, since the passage clearly describes the forthcoming story of Henry V and his wooing of Katherine of France. Falstaff does "die of a sweat" in Henry V, but in London at the beginning of the play. His death is offstage, described by another character and he never appears. His role as a cowardly soldier looking out for himself is taken by Ancient Pistol, his braggart sidekick in Henry IV, Part 2 and Merry Wives.

The epilogue also assures the playgoer that Falstaff is not based on the anti-Catholic rebel Sir John Oldcastle, for "Oldcastle died martyr, and this is not the man". Falstaff had originally been named Oldcastle, following Shakespeare's main model, an earlier play The Famous Victories of Henry V. Shakespeare was forced to change the name after complaints from Oldcastle's descendants. While it is accepted by modern critics that the name was originally Oldcastle in Part 1, it is disputed whether or not Part 2 initially retained the name, or whether it was always "Falstaff". According to René Weis, metrical analyses of the verse passages containing Falstaff's name have been inconclusive.

Date and text
Henry IV, Part 2 is believed to have been written sometime between 1596 and 1599. It is possible that Shakespeare interrupted his composition of Henry IV, Part 2 somewhere around Act 3–4, so as to concentrate on writing The Merry Wives of Windsor, which may have been commissioned for an annual meeting of the Order of the Garter, possibly the one held on 23 April 1597.

The play was entered into the Register of the Stationers' Company on 23 August 1600 by the booksellers Andrew Wise and William Aspley. The play was published in quarto the same year (printing by Valentine Simmes). Less popular than Henry IV, Part 1, this was the only quarto edition. The play next saw print in the First Folio in 1623.

The quarto's title page states that the play had been "sundry times publicly acted" before publication. Extant records suggest that both parts of Henry IV were acted at Court in 1612—the records rather cryptically refer to the plays as Sir John Falstaff and Hotspur. A defective record, apparently to the Second part of Falstaff, may indicate a Court performance in 1619.

The earliest extant manuscript text of scenes from Henry IV, Part 2 can be found in the Dering Manuscript (Folger MS V.b.34), a theatrical abridgment of both parts of Henry IV prepared around 1623.

Criticism and analysis

Part 2 is generally seen as a less successful play than Part 1. Its structure, in which Falstaff and Hal barely meet, can be criticised as undramatic. Some critics believe that Shakespeare never intended to write a sequel, and that he was hampered by a lack of remaining historical material with the result that the comic scenes come across as mere "filler". However, the scenes involving Falstaff and Justice Shallow are admired for their touching elegiac comedy, and the scene of Falstaff's rejection can be extremely powerful onstage.

The critic Harold Bloom has suggested the two parts of Henry IV along with the Hostess' elegy for Sir John in Henry V may be Shakespeare's greatest achievement.

Adaptations
There have been three BBC television films of Henry IV, Part 2. In the 1960 mini-series An Age of Kings, Tom Fleming starred as Henry IV, with Robert Hardy as Prince Hal and Frank Pettingell as Falstaff. The 1979 BBC Television Shakespeare version starred Jon Finch as Henry IV, David Gwillim as Prince Hal and Anthony Quayle as Falstaff. In the 2012 series The Hollow Crown, Henry IV, Part I and Part II were directed by Richard Eyre and starred Jeremy Irons as Henry IV, Tom Hiddleston as Prince Hal and Simon Russell Beale as Falstaff.

Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight (1965) compiles the two Henry IV plays into a single, condensed storyline, while adding a handful of scenes from Henry V and dialogue from Richard II and The Merry Wives of Windsor. The film stars Welles himself as Falstaff, John Gielgud as King Henry, Keith Baxter as Hal, Margaret Rutherford as Mistress Quickly and Norman Rodway as Hotspur.

BBC Television's 1995 Henry IV also combines the two Parts into one adaptation. Ronald Pickup played the King, David Calder Falstaff, and Jonathan Firth Hal.

Gus Van Sant's 1991 film My Own Private Idaho is loosely based on both parts of Henry IV.

The one-man hip-hop musical Clay is loosely based on Henry IV.

In 2015, the Michigan Shakespeare Festival produced an award-winning combined production, directed and adapted by Janice L. Blixt of the two plays, focusing on the relationship between Henry IV and Prince Hal.

Pop culture
The Ultimate Edition of Monty Python and the Holy Grail features subtitles correlating scenes in the film to lines from the play.

The king's opening soliloquy of Act III, scene 1 concludes with the line, "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown", which is frequently quoted (and misquoted, as "Heavy is the head that wears the crown"). It appears in the opening frame of the movie The Queen.

title: Henry IV, Part 2


text:
NCDA

The abbreviation NCDA may refer to:
 * National Career Development Association
 * Northstar Corridor Development Authority
 * National Council on Disability Affairs (Philippines)
 * NOID Check Digit Algorithm

title: NCDA


text:
Talk:New Year's Day

Untitled

 * The topic of this article is a January 1 selected anniversary

Merger with/to/from New Year's Eve

 * Discussion from both articles should go here.

I've suggested this merger because so many New Year's events start before midnight NYE (New Year's Eve), occur at the stroke of midnight, and continue during the early hours of NYD (New Year's Day). I'm not a strong advocate of merger, although I think it probably should be done. I am a strong advocate of cleaning up the duplications between the two pages. The third article, New Year, should anyway be considered. --Mark Adler (Markles)  19:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of navigation box?

I agree with the merge, things shouldn't be divided into so many groups when one is sufficent in covering them all. Steven 1:00, January 1, 2006 (UTC) PS. HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Merger with New Year
Perhaps this page should be merged with New Year? — Monedula 23:49, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I kinda agree --Navidazizi 02:15, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that they should be merged. This article is about January 1st in the Gregorian calendar, and the New Year article is about all the different New Year celebrations in different calendar systems. This article, especially, needs to make it clearer what it is about. Also, the information in the "New Year's Day" article that is about non-January 1st New Year celebrations should probably be removed, but rather than just a "See also" at the bottom, there should be a specific note at the very top of the article that says something like: "This article is about January 1st in the Gregorian calendar. For all other New Year celebrations, see the New Year article." gK ¿? 06:12, 2 Jan 2005

 * THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT TRADITIONS (one a party night, one is a bank hol (at least in the UK))Medscin 19:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * ''' I strongly disagree with the proposal to merge the two articles. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day are two distinct items. There are things that happen on New Year's Eve that have no connection to New Year's Day Harry Hayfield 21:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I strongly disagree with this proposal. They're two different days, for crying out loud! Matt Yeager 23:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the idea. Granted, they are 364/365 days apart, but the holidays are tied because they are one day after the next. That's like suggesting that there shouldn't be an article about the weekend because Saturday is the end of the week and Sunday is the start of the week. It shouldn't be merged with the New Year topic. That has nothing to do with the holiday, but what cultures celebrate their New Year. Rosh Hashanah has nothing to do with New Year's Eve or New Year's Day. The topic name should be changed to something other than just New Year. 05:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not agree to a merge, Consider, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day or all hallows eve (Halloween) and all Saints Day. While each is linked to the other, they are still two different days. Each eve and each day has its own unique meaning. a Seperate listinfg is need to explain each, G Hall Sydney Australia.

Strongly Disagree as they are different. You drink at night, the other is federal. User:Wikipedical 18:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree, because of reasons above. gtdp ( [talk] ) ( [contribs] ) 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, two different days! Scottmso 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with merging the two articles. As others have mentioned, the two articles cover completely different subject matter, and a merge together would do a disservice to both. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. The New Year article covers a lot of different celebrations. There's a Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. And besides, Jan. 1 is my birthday. HiFiGuy 02:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees (except the 2nd response) thinks the suggested merger was New Year's Day and New year's eve. I understand why these two articles should not be merged, although there is a lot of duplicated content and that should be sorted out, with reference to the correct article. The suggestion I read was should New Year's Day and New Year be merged and I strongly agree. New Year covers the Gregorian New Year's Day and other New Year Days. For the specific date 1st of January we have January_1 and the Gregorian calendar.

So now (hopefully) we have that clarified this, any objections to a merger? I think the correct title New year's day too? --Pnb73 (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditions.
How about mentioning 'first footing', the tradition of a tall man with dark hair going out just before midnight (the 12 o'clock at the end of New Year's Eve) with a lump of coal, dry bread, etc to bring in good luck to the household after the stroke of midnight?

Changing Something, explaining here
"It is still celebrated as a holy day on January 14 by those who still follow the Julian calendar such as followers of some of the Eastern Orthodox churches known as Old Calendarists."

That is not NPOV. That is taking the point of view of someone who follows the Gregorian calender. New Year's Day is celebrated on January 1 by followers of the Julian Calender, but it is January 14 in the Gregorian Calender. The wording is incorrect.

I am changing it to as follows: "It is a holy day to many of those who still use the Julian calendar, which includes followers of some of the Eastern Orthodox churches, and is celebrated thirteen days later on January 14 of the Gregorian calendar due to differences between the two calendars."

I believe that the new wording is more neutral. Bsd987 04:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If you reread your change, I don't think that the mere act of following the Julian calendar or not will make your New Year's Day holy (ok, so all of those followers, to my knowledge, are Eastern Orthodox). What I'm getting at is that regardless of whether you follow the Julian or Gregorian calendars, New Year's Day is still holy to the Eastern Orthodox. (And other folks? They can be added, too.)

 * Perhaps it could be changed to "To followers of the Eastern Orthodox religion, January 1 is the day to celebrate the feast of the Circumcision of our Lord. The actual day that this occurs may differ depending on whether a church follows the Julian or Gregorian calendars, but is always ('January 1' or 'a week after Christmas.')" (We might choose to end that sentence with the latter because more people understand that for some Eastern Orthodox, Christmas is in January.)

 * New calendar churches, like the Orthodox Church in America, for example, celebrate it on Gregorian January 1, but Old Calendar churches, like ROCOR, celebrate it on Julian January 1.
 * HiFiGuy 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

January 14 doesn't belong here

I think we need to remove this, because the article is about 1st January of Gregorian calendar - this is stated in the very first sentence. January 14 has it's own article: Old New Year. It's better to refer to it somewhere in a separate section. —DmitryChestnykh (talk • contribs) 11:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

''' HAPPY NEW YEAR ON MON JAN 1, 2007. '''

It's 19:42 on Sat Dec 30, 2006 in Santiago(City approx 10 mins drive NE of Cordon),Isabela(Province approx 8 hrs NE of Manila,Metro Manila),Philippines. My site is at (somewhere)

HAPPY HOLIDAYS 2006/2007.
 * Er ok... It's already the New Year here Nil Einne 02:30, 1 January 2007 (NZDT UTC+13)

Happy New Year =) (its 1:17 1st Jan 2007 here) (= Ben Hamid =) 01:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing reference for New Year's resolutions
A note has been included to cite a reference for the most common New Year's resolutions, yet there is no corresponding note on the separate article New Year's resolutions. Either both articles should cite a source for this, or niether. I suggest that a reference should be included, but wouldn't know where to find one, as it seems to be more "common sense" but would require some sort of poll to verify. Sroc 11:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole article needs references! Archtransit (talk) 16:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Globalize
As the article is entitled "New Year's Day" and not January 1 it ought to include the various new years of the world in different religions and cultures. Of course the biggest component would be January 1 as new years in the calendar mentioned, but that doesn't preclude other definitions (which would be details in various sections). As in Christmas the day itself doesnt limit to a (West)-euro-centric bias.
 * Granted i see the link to "New Year" it is still POV to say there is simply one "New Year's Day"Lihaas (talk) 07:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Holiday articles
I've been concentrating on articles connected with the holidays. Join me if you possibly can in trying to improve them, make improvements to my improvements. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 213.7.221.159, 1 January 2011
There where it says Greece, it should say Greece and Cyprus, because both countries have the same traditions.

213.7.221.159 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ Seems reasonable. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 07:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New Year's Days in other calendars
attempted to remove bias 206.169.93.118 (talk) 05:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg
Because I'm sure someone else has noticed the ceiling fan picture for File:Mexico City New Years 2013! (8333128248).jpg, the image at Commons has been fixed and protected. There's just a lot of revisions before Commons catches up with the current non-ceiling fan picture. No need to complain here nor there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Needs editing
The first paragraph in the History section is weird. How does a depiction of someone looking in two directions at once prove he's a pagan? Also, Janus is "pagan" in relation to what? Anyway, the grammar and sentence structures read like they were written by a committee unfamiliar with grammar but full of opinions. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoever did the edit - thanks. Reads more professionally now. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sunday holiday's effect on Monday?
The article seems not to address what happens when New Year's Day falls on Sunday (as it does this year), e.g. whether businesses and government functions are generally closed on Monday Jan 2. Bo99 (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Re Jan 1st falls on Sunday.
I imagine U.S. (maaybe other World nations too?) Suspend Federal services on Monday in celebration of New Years Day(i.e Postal services?) No mention in article of what effect this has on Public Services!Thanks!Eddson storms (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Roman festival
could use more sourcing and elaboration. Variants of January Kalends redirect here rather than January 1 because of its importance as a holiday, but that could use more fleshing out. — Llywelyn II   22:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

New Year's - bad punctuation?
Hello fellow Wikipedians, and happy New Year!

I see that the page currently says New Year's Day is alternative called "New Year's". While it's accepted practice to describe things "belonging" to the New Year this way, e.g. "New Year's Celebrations" - I'm not aware of it being common practice to use "New Year's" by itself as a noun. There's an interesting blog article on the Grammarly web site supporting my perception. However, I have not done an extensive source survey and I may be missing a regional practice? For now I'll make an edit, though I would not be surprised if it gets reverted!

Cheers.-The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The term has been in the article for several years, and its removal has been undone multiple times in the last few days. Meters (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no record of a discussion here. Perhaps there is a need for one? Is there an argument based on WP:V or WP:COMMONNAME? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've created a Request for Comment (RfC) below. Perhaps we can all carry on the dicussion there? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of the form "New Year's"
In addition to New Year's Day and New Year, should this article include the form New Year's? (Apparently, there have been a few conflicting edits over recent days, and it would be good to build a consensus.) The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree based on WP:V and WP:COMMONNAME. The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) The RFC is malformed. I believe you intended to ask if  New Year's should be removed, not  New Year
 * 2) We don't need a formal RFC to reach consensus on every issue that ends up on the talk page. It was less than one day after the issue was raised that the RFC was started and there had been no substantial discussion as yet to the thread that had been opened. I simply made the comment that you had restored a change from the long-standing version of the article. Normal procedure is to leave the article in the original state while discussing the change. As it happens, I think that New Year's should be removed. I agree with your comments elsewhere that it is applied to New Year's Eve rather than New Year's Day. Meters (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The form should indeed be New Year's - not sure how that happened. Adjusted above accordingly. The Parson's Cat (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "New Year's" is a term in use but there are two problems with including it. First, it is not always used synonymously for New Year's Day - it is also used for the New Year season, e.g. New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Second, it is a colloquial shortening, and therefore not encyclopedia tone. The term "New Year" suffers the first of these problems also - it is also used either for the New Year season, or for the early part of a year (beyond just New Year's Day). So I think both terms should be removed from the opening sentence. If an editor thinks the terms should be discussed in the article and has reliable sources etc., a new section called "Naming" or "Terminology" or some such could be added. Nurg (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No per Nurg. The term is slang. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 09:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The Grumpy Hacker (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC): YES the "New Year's" form should be included, at least as long as the "New Year" form is included (the latter being the only other form ever mentioned in the article, although I have personally never heard "New Year" used for New Year's Day in real life), for these and other reasons:
 * 1) While "New Year's" is possessive, the object of possession is not required for it to be proper English as it can be implied by context. The very blog article referenced above (on grammarly.com) states this explicitly.
 * 2) I disagree about the WP:V grounds because many, many wikipedia articles purposely neglect to include references/citations in their introductory section even if the information is not repeated (and sourced) later.
 * 3) I disagree about the WP:COMMONNAME grounds because, the way I see it, that guideline is reason/grounds to include the "New Year's" form, not exclude it. Also, that guideline generally applies only to repeated, frequent uses of the same name, not a single AKA instance--the point of which is to include all well-known AKAs.
 * 4) I disagree with Meters's point 2 above both on substance--as I contend the "New Year's" form should not be removed--and semantics--as I believe due to the inordinate number of removals and restorations the RFC has become necessary.
 * 5) I disagree with Nurg's point about it being non-exclusive to New Year's Day because this article is not about those other things and mentioning it here does not confuse or cause a reasonable reader to think this form is exclusive to New Year's Day.
 * 6) Furthermore, I believe the form "New Year" to be much more commonly used to refer to the new year, not New Year's Day.
 * 7) I disagree with Roxy's point about it being slang as a reason for removal because it is not slang it is colloquial (and non-vulgar) and there are plenty of colloquialisms throughout Wikipedia, many/most of which are informative.
 * 8) In my personal experience, I have never heard anyone ever refer to New Year's Day as "New Year," but I did not attempt to remove this form from the article simply because of that; likewise, just because someone has never heard the form "New Year's" is insufficient reason for removing this form from the article.
 * 9) Wikipedia is here to inform, and users turn to it for information; if you read something in a Wikipedia article you have never read before, you should think about this before assuming it is a mistake and removing the info without factual reason to do so.
 * 10) Wikipedia, even the English version, is multi-national and multi-cultural. While I myself have never heard anyone use the form "New Year" for New Year's Day, that does not amount to sufficient reason to delete it; likewise, it may be the case many people have heard the form "New Year" but have not heard the form "New Year's" but that does not amount to sufficient reason to delete the latter.
 * 11) If anyone is able to use "New Year" in a complete sentence in place of New Year's Day I'd sure like to hear it...

Mixed date convention - propose sticking with MDY as in article introduction and infobox
The introduction and infobox have an established convention of using MDY date formats. The rest of the article is mixed. I have gone through the article and added as many "date" templates as possible to try to create consistency in line with WP:DATES and MOS:DATEUNIFY. If you think that the MDY convention is wrong, please feel welcome to discuss this here.

Please do not delete the "date" templates - if there is a need to change them to another format, this is now easy to do with a global search and replace on the whole article text.

The Parson's Cat (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't care which version the article uses and I'm not going to go back in the history to see which was used originally,. Did you check or did you just arbitrarily pick one? There was no justification for you to have switched from BC/AD to BCE/CE against MOS:ERA or to have linked the various days, months and years against WP:DATELINK. I am removing those changes again. Meters (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 * The point is that there was originally a mix of formats for the date. The 1 January/January 1 is the main issue here. I'm happy to see that you've kept these changes and happy to take your correction on MOS:ERA.  (There were a variety of styles here.)  When you made your original revert, you broke the rest of the edits and disrupted the RfC tag - I felt that this was disruptive, but also not what you intended.  No dates were linked - that's not what the Date template does.  The date template is simply a way to automatically format dates in a consistent way. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no mixture of AD/BC and BE/BCE at all. You introduced all of those changes yourself. You also apparently decided arbitrarily that the article should be MDY format. Again, did you verify that that was the format that the article had originally been using? You also overlinked dates and added completely unnecessary date templates (it does nothing to dates that are already in the correct format or are in formats that the template does not recognize). Some of your changes may well have been  been useful but I didn't want to wade through every change you made. Per WP:BRD when you make a change and it is undone it is up to you to discuss the changes on the talk page and get consensus.
 * And could you please explain why you are "happy to take your correction on MOS:ERA" here, but felt compelled to give me a level 2 vandalism warning for the same edit .  I've made no other edits to this article that that warning could possibly be for, so it is clearly for  the same edit. My WP:AGF is done. Meters (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, which are duly noted. I am sorry if I have caused you offence.  I do feel that the MDY format was already prominent in the article, and if you look at the article's history, it was the original convention used when the page was first created.The Parson's Cat (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies, the overlinking of dates was not from you edit. Struck. 22:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Prior to PCs changes the article was predominately in DMY (with a mixture of of MDY and YYYYMMDD) - The dates used the most in an article should always be whats used, We should never switch from one format to another, As stated the article was 70-80% in DMY so therefore DMY should continue to be the main format here. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

About the origin of 1st January...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segeda

"According to the Periochae,[1] in 153 BC, the Roman Senate changed the first day of the consular year to 1 January in order to allow consul Quintus Fulvius Nobilior to attack the city of Segeda during the Celtiberian Wars.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.122.145 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020
Please remove "India" from the picture of countries that do not celebrate New Year's on 1st January. Indians do celebrate New Year's on the stroke of midnight of 31st of December. Thank you, Regards. Aman Sinha Aman3754 (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 10:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Mesopotamia...
From the article...

History[edit source]

Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) instituted the concept of celebrating the new year in 2000 BC and celebrated new year around the time of the vernal equinox, in mid-March.

From me...

Mesopotamia was a region, not a political entity. There was no unified political control over the region of Mesopotamia at that time, and separate political entities within the region did not all institute the celebrating of new year in 2000 BC.

Thibeinn (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Russia
Hi ,

Regarding Russia, as the article was recently rewritten it now appears that Russia converted to the Gregorian calendar at some point in the 1100's. Please see the following article:

Russia's Difficulties

I could find no sources to support this edit about Russia converting to the Gregorian calendar in the 1100's. Unless you can find supporting evidence/ sources for this edit about Russia's conversion date and insert these into the article, I would ask if you could please re-edit the article to reflect sources such as the one above on this.

Thanks,

Silly-boy-three (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If the article actually says that anywhere, then certainly remove it. My edit just said that the Eastern Orthodox countries adopted the Gregorian calendar in the first half of the 20th C. Russia was 1917, Greece 1923 (I think, would need to check), that's it.
 * But maybe Russia adopted 1 January in the 1100s?, which is something else entirely.
 * AFIK, the only case where there was a simultaneous transition to 1 January as New Year's Day and transition from Julian to Gregorian was in England, Wales, Ireland and the Empire. As a general principle, adoption of the Gregorian calendar is irrelevant to the start of year question. See also Old Style and New Style dates. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only reference to Russia in the article that I can find is at New Year's Day, which says that it adopted January 1 as NYD in 1725. I don't see any reference to 1100? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022
Happy new year! Reading the New Year’s Day page, I noticed some straightforward grammatical and stylistic issues that I thought I ought to bring to the editors’ attention:

1. In the section “Great Britain and the British Empire”, the second paragraph refers to “leaped years” (sic). This should, of course, be “leap years” instead:

therefore, change “leaped years” to “leap years”.

2. The last two sentences of that same paragraph begin with numbers written out in digits (not words). As it is not customary to start sentences with digits, I would suggest the following changes:

(a) change “1800 and 1900 …” to “The years 1800 and 1900”; and (b) change “2000 was …” to “The year 2000 was …”

3. That entire paragraph is in parentheses. This is unnecessary. Therefore, I would suggest deleting the unnecessary parentheses as follows:

(a) change “(By 1750…” to “By 1750…”; and (b) change “both calendars.)” to “both calendars.”

4. In the first paragraph of the section, the parenthetical statement “(except in Scotland, 1 January since 1600)” constitutes a long and awkwardly worded break in the flow of the sentence in which it is contained. I would suggest replacing it with “(except in Scotland)“, followed by a footnote linking to a source explaining Scotland’s switch to starting the year on January 1 in 1600, such as . In other words, I am suggesting the following:

change “(except in Scotland, 1 January since 1600)” to “(except in Scotland)“, followed by a footnote linking to the source .

Should you wish to discuss any of my suggestions, please do not hesitate to contact me: [redacted] 107.159.11.244 (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I completed requests 1 through 3 above, but I'm not big on footnotes, so I'll leave that to someone else if that should be implemented. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Scotland exception done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now ✅. Closing. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 16:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Collaboration at its finest, good job colleagues  -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: remove the "Related to" from the infobox
As far as I can see, the "Related to" block is just a magnet for nationalistic edits. I can't see what it contributes since there is a whole section on other New Year's Days. Can anyone offer an NPOV reason to keep it? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:New Year's Day


text:
Greedoid

In combinatorics, a greedoid is a type of set system. It arises from the notion of the matroid, which was originally introduced by Whitney in 1935 to study planar graphs and was later used by Edmonds to characterize a class of optimization problems that can be solved by greedy algorithms. Around 1980, Korte and Lovász introduced the greedoid to further generalize this characterization of greedy algorithms; hence the name greedoid. Besides mathematical optimization, greedoids have also been connected to graph theory, language theory, order theory, and other areas of mathematics.

Definitions
A set system $(F, E)$ is a collection $F$ of subsets of a ground set $E$ (i.e. $F$ is a subset of the power set of $E$). When considering a greedoid, a member of $F$ is called a feasible set. When considering a matroid, a feasible set is also known as an independent set.

An accessible set system $(F, E)$ is a set system in which every nonempty feasible set $X$ contains an element $x$ such that $$X \setminus \{x\}$$ is feasible. This implies that any nonempty, finite, accessible set system necessarily contains the empty set ∅.

A greedoid $(F, E)$ is an accessible set system that satisfies the exchange property:

 * for all $$X, Y \in F$$ with $$|X|>|Y|,$$ there is some $$x \in X \setminus Y$$ such that $$Y \cup \{x\} \in F.$$

(Note: Some people reserve the term exchange property for a condition on the bases of a greedoid, and prefer to call the above condition the “augmentation property”.)

A basis of a greedoid is a maximal feasible set, meaning it is a feasible set but not contained in any other one. A basis of a subset $X$ of $E$ is a maximal feasible set contained in $X$.

The rank of a greedoid is the size of a basis. By the exchange property, all bases have the same size. Thus, the rank function is well defined. The rank of a subset $X$ of $E$ is the size of a basis of $X$. Just as with matroids, greedoids have a cryptomorphism in terms of rank functions. A function $$r:2^E \to \Z$$ is the rank function of a greedoid on the ground set $E$ if and only if $r$ is subcardinal, monotonic, and locally semimodular, that is, for any $$X,Y \subseteq E$$ and any $$e,f \in E$$ we have:
 * subcardinality: $$r(X)\le|X|$$
 * monotonicity: $$r(X)\le r(Y)$$ whenever $$X \subseteq Y \subseteq E$$
 * local semimodularity: $$r(X) = r(X\cup\{e,f\})$$ whenever $$r(X) = r(X \cup \{e\}) = r(X \cup \{f\})$$

Classes
Most classes of greedoids have many equivalent definitions in terms of set system, language, poset, simplicial complex, and so on. The following description takes the traditional route of listing only a couple of the more well-known characterizations.

An interval greedoid $(F, E)$ is a greedoid that satisfies the Interval Property:

$$ \begin{matrix} A \cup \{x\} \in F \\ C \cup \{x\} \in F \end{matrix} \implies B \cup \{x\} \in F.$$
 * if $$A,B,C \in F$$ with $$A \subseteq B \subseteq C,$$ then, for all $$x \in E \setminus C:$$

Equivalently, an interval greedoid is a greedoid such that the union of any two feasible sets is feasible if it is contained in another feasible set.

An antimatroid $(F, E)$ is a greedoid that satisfies the Interval Property without Upper Bounds:

 * if $A,B \in F$ with $A \subseteq B,$ then, for all $x \in E \setminus B,$ $A \cup \{x\} \in F$ implies $B \cup \{x\} \in F.$

Equivalently, an antimatroid is (i) a greedoid with a unique basis; or (ii) an accessible set system closed under union. It is easy to see that an antimatroid is also an interval greedoid.

A matroid $(F, E)$ is a non-empty greedoid that satisfies the Interval Property without Lower Bounds:

 * if $B,C \in F$ with $B \subseteq C,$ then, for all $x \in E \setminus C,$ $C \cup \{x\} \in F$ implies $B \cup \{x\} \in F.$

It is easy to see that a matroid is also an interval greedoid.

Examples

 * Consider an undirected graph $G$. Let the ground set be the edges of $G$ and the feasible sets be the edge set of each forest (i.e. subgraph containing no cycle) of $G$. This set system is called the cycle matroid. A set system is said to be a graphic matroid if it is the cycle matroid of some graph. (Originally cycle matroid was defined on circuits, or minimal dependent sets. Hence the name cycle.)
 * Consider a finite, undirected graph $G$ rooted at the vertex $r$. Let the ground set be the vertices of $G$ and the feasible sets be the vertex subsets containing $r$ that induce connected subgraphs of $G$. This is called the vertex search greedoid and is a kind of antimatroid.
 * Consider a finite, directed graph $D$ rooted at $r$. Let the ground set be the (directed) edges of D and the feasible sets be the edge sets of each directed subtree rooted at $r$ with all edges pointing away from $r$.  This is called the line search greedoid, or directed branching greedoid.  It is an interval greedoid, but neither an antimatroid nor a matroid.
 * Consider an $m × n$ matrix $M$. Let the ground set $E$ be the indices of the columns from 1 to $n$ and the feasible sets be $$F = \{X \subseteq E: \text{ submatrix } M_{\{1,\ldots,|X|\},X} \text{ is an invertible matrix}\}.$$ This is called the Gaussian elimination greedoid because this structure underlies the Gaussian elimination algorithm.  It is a greedoid, but not an interval greedoid.

Greedy algorithm
In general, a greedy algorithm is just an iterative process in which a locally best choice, usually an input of maximum weight, is chosen each round until all available choices have been exhausted. In order to describe a greedoid-based condition in which a greedy algorithm is optimal (i.e., obtains a basis of maximum value), we need some more common terminologies in greedoid theory. Without loss of generality, we consider a greedoid $G = (F, E)$ with $E$ finite.

A subset $X$ of $E$ is rank feasible if the largest intersection of $X$ with any feasible set has size equal to the rank of $X$. In a matroid, every subset of $E$ is rank feasible. But the equality does not hold for greedoids in general.

A function $$w: E \to \R$$ is R-compatible if $$\{x \in E: w(x) \geq c\}$$ is rank feasible for all real numbers $c$.

An objective function $$f: 2^S \to \R$$ is linear over a set $$S$$ if, for all $$X \subseteq S,$$ we have for some weight function $$w: S \to \Re.$$

Proposition. A greedy algorithm is optimal for every R-compatible linear objective function over a greedoid.

The intuition behind this proposition is that, during the iterative process, each optimal exchange of minimum weight is made possible by the exchange property, and optimal results are obtainable from the feasible sets in the underlying greedoid. This result guarantees the optimality of many well-known algorithms. For example, a minimum spanning tree of a weighted graph may be obtained using Kruskal's algorithm, which is a greedy algorithm for the cycle matroid. Prim's algorithm can be explained by taking the line search greedoid instead.

title: Greedoid


text:
Talk:Margaret of Parma

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nrenee218.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NO CONSENSUS to move page, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Margaret of Parma → Duchess Margaret of Parma – I request to move because current format is confusing. She was neither queen consort (which goes with format "Name of place" (exampel Catherine of Aragon, nor was she ruler of Parma in her own right. The current name goes against Wikipedia rules on naming nobility, see Naming_conventions_%28names_and_titles%29 for reference. Gryffindor 17:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose This is normal usage for her in English, and calling her Duchess on the grounds that she was not duchess-regnant is just bizarre. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's only one well-known "Margaret of Parma" in English-language usage, and this is she. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose No need to fix what ain't broke. Lethiere 03:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above. The proposal seems incorrect anyway. (Margaret, Duchess of Parma might be acceptable ?) -- Beardo 06:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Deb 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I would appreciate some evidence that this phrase is ever used for her. Scholar.google.com gets one hit; and that one appears to be spurious; the book discusses her grandson, but I don't see a reference to her. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Margaret of Austria
The other Margaret of Austria (her aunt mentioned in the article) is much more famous and would deserve the main article! I came here on a link from Mechelen, which should have gone to the other one! LHOON

"woman of masculine abilities"
Maybe the 1911 phrase "woman of masculine abilities" can be rephrased. Churchh 12:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One year later, no one has responded to this: why? Are articles incorporating the 1911 Encyclopedia untouchable? Itahist 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Missprint
I'm not sure, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus on this woman's DOB. "Margaret of Parma (28 December 1522 - 18 January 1586), ... In 1527, (she,)at the age of seven,"

Title
In Dutch history books, her title is "landvoogdes". At least her formal title should be named not just what it boils down to (governess).

She is a very important person in Dutch history since she ruled during the early stages of the Dutch revolt (though the actual revolt only happened under her successor, Duke of Alva). So please do not change here name, even if that goes against policy. It is the name she has been known as for centuries.

The famous sentence "Ce ne sont que des gueux" was uttered in her presence and named the Dutch Revolt's forces. 88.159.71.34 (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Margaret of Parma