text:
Talk:Sea urchin

animals that eat urchins in lead Too regional
The lead lists sea otters, wolf eels and triggerfish as Main predators Of sea urchin. I’m pretty sure this was sourced from somewhere talking only about sea urchins in the northeast pacific probably California. Since this is the article on urchins as a whole not just the those on the west coast of North America I’m going to loosen the language a bit 75.142.22.164 (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Sea urchin
characteristic 103.167.233.7 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Musclo-skelatal intro paragraph is too "chummy"
The first paragraph is very chatty and not well written

> Sea urchins might appear to be incapable of moving but this is a false impression. ''[Really? you're assuming a lot about what I think] In some cases, [which cases specifically are you talking about and which are you not?] the most visible sign of life is the spines, which are attached to ball-and-socket joints [they are NOT ball and socket joints]'' and can point in any direction; in most urchins, touch elicits a prompt reaction from the spines, which converge toward the touched point. [this is NOT related to them moving, but is more a defence mechanism - so put it in a different paragraph.] Sea urchins have no visible eyes, legs, or means of propulsion, [chatty, do they have invisible eyes?] but can move freely but slowly over hard surfaces using adhesive tube feet, working in conjunction with the spines. [is this not a means of propulsion?]

Some of the spines are 6 inches long. Do you mean to say that the tube-feet can extend that long to reach past the spines and move the urchin? Lehasa (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 * I've fixed it up now.
 * Various resources I've found are listed below. Perhaps they'll be useful for anyone who wants to improve things more.
 * http://www.chalk.discoveringfossils.co.uk/CIDAROID_terminology.htm
 * https://ns-echinodermata.linnaeus.naturalis.nl/linnaeus_ng/app/views/introduction/topic.php?id=2845
 * https://cronodon.com/BioTech/echinoids.html
 * http://animaldiversity.org/site/accounts/information/Echinoidea.html
 * https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/echinoid-directory/morphology/regulars/intro.html Lehasa (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

female sea urchins
Reproduction only talks about male sea urchins. What about females? It does say there are clear male female sea urchins. Cowcatmom (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Tripneustes ventricosus_(West_Indian_Sea_Egg-top)_and_Echinometra_viridis_(Reef_Urchin_-_bottom).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for May 18, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-05-18. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — Amakuru (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sea urchin


text:
Lockington

Lockington may refer to:

Placenames

 * Lockington, East Riding of Yorkshire, England
 * Lockington rail crash, 1986 derailment in the East Riding of Yorkshire
 * Lockington railway station, former station in the East Riding of Yorkshire
 * Lockington-Hemington, Leicestershire, England
 * Lockington, Leicestershire, a village in the parish of Lockington-Hemington
 * Lockington, Ohio
 * Lockington, Victoria

Surname

 * Andrew Lockington (born 1974), Canadian film score composer
 * David Lockington (born 1956), music director of the Grand Rapids Symphony
 * William Neale Lockington (1840-1902), English zoologist

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

title: Lockington


text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 3

Previous discussions are archived here: Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 2 -

Synergy
Some thoughts...

Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.

Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.

For beautiful example of this, check out Template:United States and Category:U.S. states. And notice how the U.S. states category contains at least eleven lists. The template provides quick and meaningful navigation, the lists provide additional information and alternate sorting, and the category provides overall organization and links to related groups of topics.

That is synergy.

- Pioneer-12 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, You appear to have done something that destroyed the ability to edit this talk page by section. Somehow, now the correct sections nolonger appear in the edit screen. Can you fix this problem?

Next, this is not what I asked for. I do not want a lecture. I would like for you to actually write the proposed text, rather than lecture me about it. In other words, I would like for you to actually contribute to the writing of this proposed text. Other editors should also participate.

So, why don't we start all over again at the very bottom of this talk page, and actually write text that could actually be inserted in the project page in lieu of the present list of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of abilities (as your previously wrote on this topic). I am having trouble visualizing how this might actually look.

And, finally, synergy is only one small part of this proposal rather than the entire point. The major part is the listing of categories, lists, and ASB from a abilities point of view. I would assume that would then lead to a section of instructions regarding merging lists into categories, etc., etc., -- John Gohde 14:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, bug be gone. :-)

 * Next, this wasn't supposed to be article-ready text, but rather an explanation that could hopefully lead to article-ready text. A mini-essay, if you will. You call it a lecture, which implies a negative connotation when not in a university setting. Whatever. Just giving my thoughts on the matter.

 * Finally, I'm not sure what you're planning. Adding a couple of paragraphs on synergy? Moving all of the abilities sections to their own section? Adding something about when to turn lists into categories?

 * This is getting to be very tiresome. I would like to get back to actually discussing issues directly pertaining to the article. I have given my thoughts on synergy and how it applies here. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this. What do you think of the example? I think it should be in the article. - Pioneer-12 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages
The contents of these sections have been bouncing around like a caffeine addict doing the Hokey Pokey. So many things have been moved in and out of these sections I'm not sure what should be in there any more. I think it would be helpful if people made a list, on a seperate page, of all the things they think should be listed in these sections, instead of reverting minor changes back and forth. I would especially love to compare Snowspinner's list to John Gohde's list. - Pioneer-12 03:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the sort of thing this talk page is for? The following subsections are from the 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 version of the article (one back from current - I couldn't figure out how to get an invariant URL for the current version).  How about if in these sections we propose additions in italics, keep the current ones in regular text, and use strikethrough font for ones we decide to delete (no actual deleting allowed), and comment here before changing the article text?   I added an advantage to lists (not following these conventions) listed below in italics, which is the difference between what's below and the current article.  -- Rick Block 01:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages - Abilities of categories

 * 1) Auto-linking. Create a link to a category on an article page, and a corresponding link to that article will be visible on the category page.
 * 2) Multi-directional navigation. A category can contain multiple subcategories, and can also be part of several categories. They naturally organize into a web of knowledge. (See folksonomy.) Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Fundamental.
 * Proposed change - The statement simply is not true, since webs of knowledge created with lists or ASBs are easier to use do a better job of presenting the information. -- John Gohde 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the reasoning here. Even if categories were harder to use (and I don't think the real issue is ease of use, it's attractiveness of presentation), this does not make the statement untrue. How about Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Fundamental? --- Rick Block 13:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * *Can somebody please show me this web of knowledge created by categories? Where exactly is it? Does it fit nicely on one page or over 200? -- John Gohde 20:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it's written, but I believe the intent is that all articles will be added to at least one category. Per WP:CG, all categories except for category:fundamental are supposed to be parented by at least one category.  Assuming both of these have been done wih a modicum of intelligence, any article within wikipedia should be linked to any other (by category traversal "up" toward fundamental and then back "down" via some other branch).  Of course, the same argument can probably be made about regular links within articles but links within articles have no hierarchical relationship to a well defined "root".  Does the "web of knowledge" induced by categories fit on one page?  No.  Does it fit on 200?  Who knows, but probably not.  -- Rick Block 21:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely, it is not that mess in Categories? Where is the page where only the highest of highest levels of categories are displayed?  It does not exist, does it? Kind of proves my point don't it? I shall repeat, where is this web of knowledge displayed with categories? -- John Gohde 22:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding the issue. From category:fundamental (a category page, not an article page), one can (in theory) traverse via subcategories to a category containing any article.  Hence, all articles are "linked" via some linkage of the form article -> category -> supercategory -> ... -> category:fundamental -> subcategory -> ... -> subcategory -> article. -- Rick Block 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any comments on this change. Going once ... -- Rick Block 04:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Going twice... -- Rick Block 03:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are good for categorizing items that are likely to change. Thus, categories are ideal for tracking items like best selling books, NPOV articles, and current events.

Disadvantages of categories

 * 1) Alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetisation).
 * 2) Their purpose may not be immediately apparent to new visitors to Wikipedia, since their names, being short, are not very descriptive of their key role in navigation on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Categories are not operational on most mirror sites.
 * 4) No formatting control over how articles and categories included in a category are shown.
 * Addition of this item to the page was reverted by user:David Gerard as instruction creep. I suggest generalizing the first item to include this notion, perhaps Category listings are automatically generated, in alphabetical order (though you can control the alphabetisation), with no editor control over formatting.  -- Rick Block 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia's redirect feature cannot be used to create differently named, but functionally identical, categories.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 01:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The default user skin places the display of categories at the very bottom of an article. Thus, visitors may not be even aware of their existence.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we combine this with #3 above ("Their purpose many not ...")? -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this weakness should stand on its own or at least come first. Look at the main page that uses template:Categorybrowsebar.  This is precisely why they use template:Categorybrowsebar instead of categories Category:Fundamental. The question is simply this. Why not just place Category:Fundamental in the main page as categories are supposed to be used? Nobody would see Category:Fundamental if it was used in place of the current usage of template:Categorybrowsebar which also supposedly uses categories in a prohibited manner (ie, as a hyperlink)? And, also, nobody would have a clue as to what they are looking at. -- John Gohde 20:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Being constantly recreated on a realtime basis, categories put an operational hardware drain on Wikipedia that has the effect of slowing the responsiveness of Wikipedia down.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) When only a backup copy of Wikipedia is available for viewing due to server problems, categories are not operational whereas lists still offer an older version to navigate with.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is effectively the same as the previous one and should be combined. -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A category cannot be edited collectively as one single page, even if annotated categories are being used. Editors must travel all over Wikipedia in order to changed a category, rather edit the category directly itself.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the dual of advantage #1. I'd restate it so the relationship is much more obvious. -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The reason an article is included in a category must be self-evident since there is no opportunity to visibly annotate within an article why it is included in a specific category.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As category usage increases many articles, particularly biographical articles, end up being added to many categories resulting in a large list of category memberships. Display of the category membership listing, and due to the use of templates which include articles in categories even the ordering of this listing, is not under user control.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are wasted on categorizing items that are not likely to change. Thus, categories should not be used to track items that will never change, like ancient Greek philosophers.

Advantages - Abilities of lists

 * 1) Lists can be annotated. That is they can include additional information beyond the item name. For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can also list when the championship was won.  This ability can be used to explain why a particular article is included in a list, which is sometimes useful for sensitive or controversial lists.  This also allows a list to include similar, but not quite identical, types of articles that might require multiple categories.  One example might be nominees for an award.  In a list, the winners can be indicated.  Conveying the same information in categories requires separate categories for winners and non-winning nominees.
 * Add the bit about similar, but not identical. -- Rick Block 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created.
 * 2) List items can be sorted using a variety of methods and can be manually formatted like any other wikipedia article. An article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list, or shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories.
 * Proposed formatting addition. -- Rick Block 04:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists that intelligently show relationships are easier to use than their respective category.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would change "easier to use" to something like more comprehensible and include this in the previous item. I think this follows from the ability to control the formatting. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- John Gohde 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Just like the index of a book, an article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not in quite these words, but this seems to be already mentioned in #3, above. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) ''It often desirable and physically possible with a list to have an article shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned above, in #3. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It should at least be stressed more in #3 as this is explicitly prohibited in the implementation of categories by this guideline. This fact makes categories less comprehensible. -- John Gohde 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As currently implemented, lists which are file based put less of an operational hardware drain on Wikipedia then categories which continuously have to be created on a realtime basis.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) All lists could be linked together, creating a web of knowledge, by use of a complete set of glossaries in the form of annotated lists. With a little work, list of glossaries could be developed into a complete web of knowledge.
 * 2) Static categorization schemes, like lists, are excellent for listing items that are not likely to change.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 04:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages of lists

 * 1) Not auto-linked, as categories are.
 * Proposed change - Do we really need to say that not having the properties of a category is a disadvantage? And, why is this property being singled out? To me, not being auto-linked is clearly an advantage rather than a disadvantage. -- John Gohde 08:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists are often redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.
 * 2) Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.
 * Proposed change -- John Gohde 07:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages - Abilities of article series boxes

 * 1) Provide a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no standard format).
 * 2) Faster to navigate than a category.
 * 3) Although controversial, navigational boxes can be used as an extended see also footer for geographical articles containing direct links to multiple types of articles (cities, counties, etc.).
 * Propose addition. -- Rick Block 04:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The presence of an ASB within an article encourages the reading of articles shown within the respective box.
 * 2) A number of ASB's have already been developed that provide a complete web of knowledge, such as Browse by overview and Browse.
 * Proposed additions -- John Gohde 07:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * I would like to add that of the the three choices, a blue box does the best job of presenting the web of knowledge on Wikipedia to the public in a form that is very compact and comprehensible. Thus, the artifical restriction of Snowspinner of restricting ASBs to just linear series is just plain stupid and should be dropped. -- John Gohde 21:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages of article series boxes

 * 1) Almost always replaceable with a category. It can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large.
 * 2) Article series boxes are often considered unsightly. Multiple boxes are generally considered a blight.
 * 3) Often inadvertently push a POV — suggesting that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Many templates go to WP:TFD because they appear to push POV. People often add more series boxes to try to remedy this, exacerbating complaints of unsightliness.
 * 4) Wikipedia's NPOV policy might mean that multiple ASBs would be required in some articles in order to avoid the appearance of promoting only one point of view.
 * Proposed change -- John Gohde 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT?!
Isn't it queer than when categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, that our beloved Main page doesn't have a single category on it? Isn't it odd, that Main page uses a list, and a template no less, to organize the entire web of information on Wikipedia? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that plain old lists are easier to use than categories?

Clicking on Article overviews produces one of those dreaded ASBs which just happens to do an even better job of helping visitors to Wikipedia find what they are looking for. Likewise, clicking on BROWSE produces a very useful ASB. Compare these two ASBs to Category:Fundamental and try to tell me that the category does a better job of presenting its respective information!

Clicking on SCIENCE unfortunately produces a category which is nothing but a total mess of unorganized information. A bulleted list, intelligently showing relationships, or an ASB would do a much better job.

Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! -- John Gohde 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Categories DO naturally link together into web of knowledge. The concepts of "every article belongs in a category" and "every category belongs in a category" facilitate this. It's true that they don't necessarily form a well-organized web--but this is due to the distributed nature of Wikipedia: Just like as article takes skill and effort to become high quality, a well organized web of categories takes skill and effort. - Pioneer-12 05:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I partly disagree - CURRENT categories have no way to structure the data, because they have no properties their elements should carry. This is a lack of structure in wikipedia and consequently results in a bunch of problems -see below

Objections to proposed additions
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please discuss each one individually. The point of listing them all here (on the talk page) is to provide a record of the discussions and, I hope, provide a more controlled mechanism for adding to and/or changing the actual list on the guideline page.  I believe the feedback is that at least some editors are not happy with the guidelines as currently written and being bold has resulted in an unmanageable number of changes to the guideline page.  -- Rick Block 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to say, "discuss 13 changes individually when a blanket objection to the idea of adding to this page without good reason" and "controlled" don't seem to go together to me. How about I go on record opposing all additions that are not offered with substantive justification for the instruction creep. As a general rule, I oppose additions that go beyond identifying an area of difference and a broad statement of the nature of the difference. So I would prefer "lack of control over how categories are ordered" and "Inability to annotate individual entries" to a description of every effect of these. Yes, the inability to annotate means they need to be obvious. But that's overly specific for the guideline. This is not Philosophy of categories - it's a functional guideline. The onus is on the proposal to show that it aids in functionality, and is not just using a guideline page to conduct a philosophical discussion on systems of organization within an encyclopedic project. For these things, meta and talk pages exist. Snowspinner 16:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The onus is on the people trying to triple the length of the page to show why this is a good idea. Read instruction creep and try to learn its message. Conciseness is essential in a usable guideline - this is supposed to be something an editor can refer to quickly and get a good idea of how common sense works out in this area. Omit needless words. - David Gerard 17:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not suggesting we triple the size of the guideline page. I am suggesting we discuss potential additions before changing the guideline page.  Perhaps I came to the party late, but from what I can tell user:Snowspinner and user:John Gohde both have valid points, but have essentially stopped listening to each other.  I'm trying to help by providing a place (here) where both can be heard.  Snide comments (from an arbitrator!) are not helpful. -- Rick Block 20:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think David was being snide here. It's just that... well... John has never really offered an explanation for his additions, beyond his clear hatred of categories. And so before I spend time getting into a thirteen-pronged discussion with him over each and every one of his additions, I want him to actually offer an explanation of them - what do they add that is both of general yet non-obvious interest that is not covered elsewhere. Why do they make the decision of which organizational system to use clearer rather than more opaque and complicated. I don't really have time to spend arguing points that John can't be bothered to articulate in the first place. These are basic questions that need to be answered whenever somebody is trying to add to a policy or guideline. Snowspinner 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * My apologies if I offended; I wasn't meaning to come across as being snide. I was, however, intending to come across as blunt. Instruction creep is bad. A guideline must be concise. Read instruction creep and hack away at excess verbiage in guidelines - David Gerard 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Conciseness is good. As "The Elements of Style" recommends, "Omit needless words." However, beware of oversimplification--guidelines need to be concise AND thorough. This isn't meant to be a summary; this is meant to be an explanation. Things need to be spelled out (but spelled out in the most straightforward way possible).

 * Thus: "Omit needless words, but don't omit needed words." or "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Pioneer-12 22:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

m:Instruction Creep

 * On a side note, I don't know why everyone keeps referencing Instruction creep. That page is about the "how to use this page" instructions found on pages such as Village pump and Featured article candidates. It's not meant as a style guide or as a commentary on Wikipedia guidelines in general. - Pioneer-12 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I comprehensively disagree. It applies to anything that's instructions, and that certainly includes guideline pages - David Gerard 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Instruction creep is not even a part of Wikipedia. If it was that important, it would be a part of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 02:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, I recently took a closer look at meta and it appears to be just a colossal garbage dump. Meta's main page does not even indicate clearly what meta contains. There is no apparent meta web of knowledge. But, getting back to my original point.  What do Wikipedians go by: NPOV or NPOV?  Quite obviously, we go by NPOV.  The same logic applies to Instruction creep.  If there was any merit to your comments, you would be referencing Instruction creep.  It don't exist. Therefore your point is mute and you are exercising bad faith for even bringing it up. -- John Gohde 19:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do go by NPOV. And we know that we have to go by NPOV because of Foundation issues. Snowspinner 20:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, Fred Bauder's fork Wikinfo project uses a sympathetic point of view rather than NPOV. So, what? Unless you show a direct connection to Instruction creep, your reply is besides the point. -- John Gohde 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that Meta contains pages that apply to all of the Wikimedia projects. So, while NPOV applies only to en, Foundation issues shows us five rules that must apply to all projects hosted by the Wikimedia foundation. Other pages on meta like Instruction creep. MPOV and Don't be a dick are important also - not because they're policy, but because they're really good ideas. Snowspinner 20:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Says, you and David, but no one else. Itis really very simply, if there was any merit to your comments, you would be referencing Instruction creep just like you can reference NPOV. Furthermore, as both you and I have painfully pointed out Foundation issues does not include any reference to Instruction creep. Ergo, it is not required to be used in Wikipedia per your own words that you just wrote above. -- 01:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... what? Foundation Issues are five things that Jimbo and the Foundation have said are non-negotiable for a project to be hosted by the Foundation. That doesn't mean that they're the only generally applicable pages. Instruction creep is bad on any Wikipedia, and so it goes in Meta. It's not foundation-mandated, but that doesn't mean it's somehow a good idea, any more than Don't be a dick is bad advice because it doesn't stem from the Foundation. Snowspinner 13:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Another Freudian slip, I suppose? -- John Gohde 06:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what Meta is. Snowspinner 02:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you understand the implications of referencing meta? I can, also, quote Larry Sanger from Meta . Meta is not Wikipedia. Just thought that might want to know. -- John Gohde 04:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. I think we all agree that Instruction creep is not official policy but is something worth considering. More important, though, is: What exactly do you think it is saying? If you think it's saying "omit needless words--keep instructions concise" then I agree with that principle. If you think it's saying "Less detailed instructions are inherently better" then I completely disagree.

 * Actually, I think the page is misnamed; it should be called "Procedure creep", as it is more about tedious bureaucratic procedures then helpful "how-to" instructions. (Reread it if you don't believe me.) - Pioneer-12 07:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that this guideline should be as big as it is required to be and no smaller. Furthermore, we have just begun to make this guideline useful. I still want a separate section discussing synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. The real work has just begun. Otherwise, this whole guideline should be deleted as so far it is clearly redundant and totally unnecessary. -- John Gohde 20:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Feel free to mark it for VfD, John. I think you'll find, though, that this would be considered a violation of WP:POINT by a lot of people. Snowspinner 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking of getting bigger, Categorization clearly mandates that this guideline is supposed to cover infoboxes per . -- John Gohde 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues with the current guidelines
Here are my issues with the current guideline page: I wouldn't say I hate categories (yet) - a large percentage of my more than 10,000 edits on wikipedia are category-related. On the other hand, I definitely think categories are currently overused and it pains me that there isn't a guideline to point to to justify WP:CFD votes for deletion in cases like category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film). I'd like this guideline to be the place. Categories ARE useful, but so are lists and so are navigational templates (and not just for series!). -- Rick Block 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The article essentially starts with a "how to" for categories repeated from WP:CG.  Not only is this redundant, but it reinforces the notion that categories are the most desirable option.
 * 2) The article fails to mention performance implications.  Perhaps we should get a comment from a developer, but from what I can tell large categories are essentially BAD for wikipedia and led to the 200 articles per page limitation.
 * 3) The article at least strongly implies the first choice organizational method should be category ("the policy on lists is generally fairly permissive").   IMO, categories have gotten to the point where they are ridiculously overused.  For example, see category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film), a category for films casting a non-winning nominee for the best supporting actress oscar (note to cburnett if you're reading this - it really isn't anything personal).  I listed this category at WP:CFD, but there were no votes either way.  There is no guideline I can point to to support my contention that this is a ridiculous way to organize these articles and, in this case, a list should be used (see, for example, List of Best Supporting Actor nominees and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films)).
 * 4) The article fails to mention a number of significant advantages and disadvantages and doesn't exactly hit the essence of some that it does mention.  Specific examples:
 * 5) *Category disadvantage #1 - the crux of this is that category listings are automatically generated in alphabetical order, 200 entries per page. You can control the order, but nothing else.
 * 6) *Category disadvantage #2 - not only is their purpose not readily apparent, their very existence is not readily apparent since with the default skin they are listed at the bottom of an article (often following a large chunk of whitespace).
 * 7) *Category disadvantage not mentioned - no real way to provide synonyms (redirects) for categories.
 * 8) *Category disadvantage not mentioned - the list of categories an article is in (as opposed to the category listing itself) is auto-generated with no editor control of the formatting (including the order due to template-based categorization).
 * 9) *There are more, but I don't have time to re-list them all here (see above, and I'll admit that not all of the additions proposed above are significant).
 * 10) Wording for some of the advantages and disadvantages that are listed could stand to be improved.

 * I basically agree with your issues listed in this section. But, I still want a separate section added that discusses synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. It is very important that redundancy be precisely defined and how one is supposed to know when redundancy occurs be explicitly pointed out even if some editors think that it is self-evident. -- John Gohde 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages... or abilites?
This page is a guideline on how and when to use each method. In order to know how and when to use each method, I need to know what each method can and cannot do. That is, I need to know the abilities of each method. The purpose and utility of the "advantages" sections is to let readers clearly know the abilities of each method.

However, some people have seen these sections as a competition and as a podium to show that "categories are good" or "categories are bad". (How silly!)

Perhaps it would be better if the advantages sections were renamed "Abilities". This would:
 * 1) More directly relate to what the readers are looking for.
 * 2) Make the content of the sections more objective and concrete. (An "advantage" can be a matter of option. An ability is a matter of fact.)
 * 3) Reduce arguments over what should and should not be in those sections. (I hope.)

- Pioneer-12 22:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I do believe that the idea is to modify the above blue box on the talk page until a consensus is reached. So, I suggest that you implement your above suggestions in the blue box. -- John Gohde 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Section titles changed... but I think the entire box's content needs to be reevaluated using the perspective of "abilities". We may need a new box. (And the "blue box" is grey, not blue, in my browser. :-p) - Pioneer-12

 * I wasn't too happy with the additions of the 'advantages/disadvantages' lists going in (did I mention how much I hate instruction creep?), but they're looking useful (e.g. how to avoid your shiny new template becoming a candidate for WP:TFD) - David Gerard 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Focusing on abilities will also make these sections shorter and more cogent, as non-ability related items will be removed. It also, I think, makes the "disadvantages" (or "lack of ability") sections unnecessary. They could be replaced with notes on "when not to use".

Being shorter and to the point should make a number of people, including Dave Gerard, Snowspinner, and myself, happy. - Pioneer-12 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replace "Disadvantages" with "When not to use"
Here you go. This fits in with the whole abilities point of view. I think these sections should replace the current "disadvantages" sections. Interestingly, by thinking in terms of abilities and "when to use, when not to use, and what to use instead", you see how these tools complement instead of compete with each other. It's synergy, baby! - Pioneer-12 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When not to use categories
When it is a grouping that it not a "classification" or a grouping that requires annotations. In these cases, use a list instead.

When it is a grouping mainly for navigational convenience. In these cases, use a navigational template instead.

When not to use lists
When it simply duplicates a category and adds no meaningful annotations. In there cases, use a category instead.

When not to use navigational templates
When articles that are in the same subject but not meaningfully related to each other. For example, Eli Whitney, Adolphe Sax, and Levi Strauss are all inventors, but they have have no significant connection to one another. Navigational templates should only be used when one would want to directly navigate from one topic to other. For general classification, use categories.

For long lists of items. If a navigational template is too large, it clutters up an article and distracts from the article-specific content. In these cases, the template should be converted into a list or category.

Proposed rewrite of project page
from an abilities point of view

Categories, lists, and series box synergy
Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.

Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.

Synergy is the interconnections between categories, lists, and series boxes and the benefits that Wikipedia expects to realize from their intelligent use. Here we will describe a complementary approach where none of these tools compete with each other. This section is a guide on how and when to use each tool.

Applications that categories excel at

 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are good for categorizing items that are likely to change. Thus, categories are ideal for tracking items like best selling books, NPOV articles, and current events.

Applications not suitable for categories

 * xxx

What is getting to be very tiresome is working with a contrary editor, who absolutely refuses to help reach a consensus with at least 2 other editors on anything, even on their own ideas. You are a breed of editor full of ideas, or hot air depending on your perspective, who for what ever reason refuses to articulate their own ideas into workable text in the above box of whatever color. Either you are either incredibly obnoxious or extremely dense.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I consider the abilities idea offically dead until you develop something that I can actually see. Feel free, to do whatever. I am back to developing the advantages/disadvantages approach.

Just incase you, truly don't know. The editing capabilities of this talk page remain destroyed. -- John Gohde 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Two things:
 * 1) Stop the personal attacks. My actions speak for themselves. I find your view of me to be lacking any basis in reality.
 * 2) The section editing works for me (most of the time). There seems to be a bug in the software where it doesn't always work. What's causing it? Perhaps the use of html-style section headings.... I replaced the html with wikitext, and everything seems to be working now. - Pioneer-12 23:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-

General objections to the rewrite
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be m:Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree: idiosyncractic and POV advantages and disadvantages are not helpful to the reader. They would be great for a seperate page but don't belong here. What do you think of changing the advantages sections to abilites? (See my thoughts above.) - Pioneer-12 23:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

navigational templates =? article series boxes
There's an old issue that as far as I know has never been resolved regarding the wording about navigational templates that are not article series boxes (the article says these should be replaced with categories). I've started a discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates. If you're interested, please commment there. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Modification to category/sub-category rule
I think there's a case that calls for modification of the rule on articles not being in both a parent category and a sub-category (besides the existing exception of when the article defines the sub-category.) I'll lay out a hypothetical case that illustrates why this second exception makes sense; please bear with me as I lay out the (imaginary) facts:

 * Thurnald Humdingler and Weskell Beanwexler are famous as perhaps the two most noted critics of the artistic movement of Neo-Wootzlerism.
 * Humdingler, before he became a passionate critic of the movement, was one of its primary adherents.
 * There is a parent category, Category:Neo-Wootzlerism, but at the start of our story it has no sub-categories.
 * Someone creates the sub-category Category:Adherents of Neo-Wootzlerism, for past and present adherents of the movement.
 * Because Humdingler was an adherent once, his article is added to the category Adherents of Neo-Wootzlerism.
 * Humdingler's article is then removed from the general category of Neo-Wootzlerism, because according to a rigid interpretation of the category scheme, an article should not be in both a parent category and a sub-category (barring the definition exception.)

This is where the meat of the problem shows. Humdingler is relevant to the parent category in two ways: as a former adherent, and as a critic. However, because one of those two ways has its own category, it is (incorrectly) being presented as if it was the only way he was relevant to the parent category. Beanwexler is a prominent critic, which earns him his place in the parent category, but Humdingler, an equally prominent critic, is deprived of his place in the parent category because he once was an adherent.

For this reason, I suggest we add language which explains a second exception: when the article has a relevance to the parent category that does not fall under any of the existing sub-categories -- even if it has other relevance which does. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense. For instance, in our category of French revolution figures, I believe that many of the leaders of the revolution are all divided up into subcategories by their means of death. It is absurd that this subcategorization should remove them from the main category. john k 01:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Similar problem in the Category of Linguists, there are also Categories of Linguists by Nationality (why? sure beats me. Isn't boolean AND by category possible?). All linguists would presumably fall in both the general Linguists cat. and the cat. for linguists of their particular nationality. Some linguists have been sorted under both, some under just Linguists and some just under  linguists.
 * Now, let's say some linguist (like me) would like to see which of his/her colleges are mentioned in wikipedia, by following category-links instead of searching for N thousand names by hand. As it is, he/she must know in which country the colleague was born or currently has citizenship, since the number of actual linguists listed on the Category:Linguists are very few indeed. And what happens if a linguist changes nationality? Rather silly, no? It might be that nationality is very important in some fields but linguistics is not one of them, for that we are too few, and those who go for tenure-track often ends up living quite a nomadic existence. --Kaleissin 20:25:10, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

does the rule against vertical over-categorization apply to categories as well?
The project page guidelines specify that an article should not be in both a parent category and a sub-category, unless the article defines the sub-category. Does this apply to categories themselves as well as articles? That is, if Category A is in Category B but does not define it, and Category B is in Category C, does the rule specify that Category A shouldn't be also a direct sub-category of Category C? That's what is implied by making the same rule on articles apply to categories. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed at Pump
I have marked this as proposed since there was no policy tag and parts of it seem to lack consensus. My comment on this can be found at the village pump. Dragons flight 01:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal: Semantics, properties and navigation
It seems that the problem of categories, lists, series boxes, navigation bars etc. could be resolved in a structured way, just by building a semantic system. Here the proposal:
 * 1) add properties of lemmata within a category: (i.e. Lemma:Missisippi, category:river with properties: length:..., continent:..., country:..., ..., etc.) Properties might be images as well (i.e. image of Missisippi) and might have multiple entries (i.e. cities at the Missisippi).
 * 2) create a standard access scheme for property lookups: i.e
 * 3) replace/enhance category by template for category: including display of properties and a "sort by" and "start" + "end" option. This makes lists within articles obsolete and nicely structured
 * 4) replace lists by category templates (table lookups): lists should only be a part of a category and should not destroy the flow of an article
 * 5) replace "wild grown" property boxes by real category-property-templates (table lookups): (i.e. within the lemma Missisippi one can just insert the temaplate category:river and everything is nicely laid out, no need to format a huge unmaintainable table anymore.
 * 6) add/refine navigation and article series templates by lookup tables: Allow for templates that can access the properties within one lemma to directly navigate to the appropriate category, select one of the properties, display the ~5 closest entries within the property (including links, of course) - this replaces "wild grown" navigation bars
 * 7) add an option to activate/deactivate navigation bars in the preferences and/or keep them minimized, with an option to unfold them on demand
 * 8) add a property editor, that is activated when editing a lookup table (to edit the property-entries of the category in a structured way)
 * 9) allow for dynamic sorting if a table displays multiple properties.

This would structure the content in an efficient mannor, while keeping the code and structuretransparent and easy to maintain. See also bugzilla entry

--BoP 08:17:08, 2005-09-02 (UTC)


text:
John Queen

John Queen (February 11, 1882 – July 15, 1946) was a labour activist and Manitoba politician who was a leader of the Winnipeg General Strike, for which he served a year in prison.

He was a Labour city councillor in Winnipeg from 1916 to 1921; MLA for Winnipeg from 1920 to 1941; and the mayor of Winnipeg from 1935–1936 and 1938–1942. He was also the parliamentary leader of Manitoba's Independent Labour Party from 1923 to 1935.

Background
Queen was born at Lanarkshire, Scotland in 1882, the son of John Queen and Jane Todd, both natives of Scotland. A cooper by trade, he arrived in Canada in 1906 with his younger brother William, moving into a rooming house at 259 Dorothy St., a stone's throw from the massive Canadian Pacific Railway yards where many working-class Scottish and English immigrants were then employed. He operated a horse-drawn delivery wagon for a laundry. On June 25, 1908, Queen married Katherine Ross, who had herself emigrated from Scotland in 1907.

By 1911 the family, which by then included a son John and a daughter Gloria (later Gloria Queen-Hughes, a prominent feminist and mayoral candidate), were living in the working-class neighbourhood of Weston.

Political activism
Queen soon became involved in the radical politics of Winnipeg. He joined the Social Democratic Party of Canada in 1908, as the group was breaking away from the more doctrinaire Socialist Party of Canada. Queen's own variety of socialism was undogmatic, and was strongly influenced by the reform liberalism of John Stuart Mill.

City council
Queen was elected to the Winnipeg City Council in 1916. He served on this body representing Ward Five until 1921. In this capacity, he argued for a more progressive tax system, and defended the rights of returning soldiers. He intended to run for federal office in 1917 but stood aside in the interest of labour unity.

Queen was a leading figure in the Winnipeg General Strike, and received a one-year jail sentence for "seditious conspiracy" in 1920. This did not hurt his popularity among the city's workers, and he was elected by Winnipeg voters to the Manitoba Legislature in 1920 and as mayor later.

Elected to provincial legislature
In June 1920, while still serving his prison term, he was elected to the Manitoba Legislature in the ten-member district of Winnipeg. After taking his seat in 1921, he supported a motion to allow "peaceful picketing" within the province; this motion was defeated.

The SDPC ceased to exist in 1920. Queen was re-elected in 1922 as an "Independent Workers" candidate.

He then joined the Independent Labour Party. When Fred Dixon resigned in 1923, Queen became the ILP's parliamentary leader.

Canada's labour movement experienced several setbacks in the late 1920s, and the ILP was not an especially strong electoral force during Queen's time as leader. Only three party members were elected in 1927, all from Winnipeg—Queen, William Ivens and Seymour Farmer.

The party fared slightly better in 1932, winning four seats in Winnipeg (electing Ivens, Farmer, Hyman and Queen) and electing Harold Lawrence in St. Boniface who beat out veteran Conservative MLA Joseph Bernier.

The party made little headway beyond urban areas, however, and remained a relatively small opposition group to the Progressive government of John Bracken.

Mayor
After failed attempts in 1932 and 1933, Queen was elected mayor of Winnipeg in 1934 (defeating John McKerchar, the candidate of the city's business interests). Queen again pushed for progressive taxation, and spoke out against a proposed tax reduction for various businesses within the city. As mayor, he passed a tax reform bill that provided for a significant increase in the city's revenues.

Queen served as mayor from 1935 to 1936, and again from 1937 to 1942. He did not endorse many explicitly socialist policies during his period in office, instead he favoured a general programme of civic improvement. Queen's housing reforms were upheld as a model for the rest of the nation. He held leading positions in the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities.

Later political career
Queen continued to serve in the provincial legislature during his tenure as mayor, though he turned over the leadership of the party to Seymour Farmer in 1935.

Along with the rest of the ILP caucus, he became affiliated with the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in 1933. His defeat in the provincial election of 1941 seems to have been unexpected.

Queen was also defeated when he ran for re-election as Winnipeg's mayor in 1942, He lost another bid in 1944. Opposition from Winnipeg's Communists was undoubtedly a contributing factor in both cases.

He died at home in Winnipeg on July 15, 1946.

title: John Queen


text:
Talk:Centered polygonal number

Karl, it's very nice to have this article. But the changes you made to the linked articles seemed very wrong to me for some reason:

 * A centered k-agonal number is a figurate number that represents a k-agon ...

So I changed them to

 * A centered k-agonal number is a centered figurate number that represents a k-agon ...

Anton Mravcek 21:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anton, I agree with your changes. Further thought, suggests that Centred number should be moved to Centred polygonal number like Polygonal number.

User:Karl Palmen 12:15 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Proposed merger

 * Oppose. I think it's a terrible idea, especially for centered hexagonal numbers. For the others, a case can be made, but still not likely to convince me. PrimeFan 21:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * GrayDotX.svg (discussion)
 * RedDotX.svg (discussion)

"The difference of the n-th and the (n+1)-th consecutive centered k-gonal numbers is k(2n+1)." Is unclear. When I solve the the difference between (n+1)-th centered k-gonal number and n-th centered k-gonal number I get k(2n). More generally, if you solve for difference of (n+p)-th centered k-gonal number and n-th k-gonal number you get $$C_{k,n+p}-C_{k,n} =\frac{kp}{2}(2n+p-1)$$. Returning to $$ k(2n+1)$$, I'm assuming you can simply say that $$k=\frac{kp}{2}$$ and $$ 1=p-1$$, which is satisfied by p=2, not p=1. Is the original phrase supposed to mean the difference in $$ C_{k,n+1}-C_{k,n}$$ or something else entirely? Hiruki8 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Centered polygonal number


text:
User:The Iconoclast

Jonathan M. Sweet, born September 13, 1975, in Chicago, is an American horror author. His screen name comes from a Pinky and the Brain short, "Puppet Rulers", in which Brain, posing as a kiddie-show host, called himself, "The Iconoclast, an unconventional eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drummer".

A graduate of Arkansas State University, he was a psychology and English major, a member of the honor society Pi Gamma Mu, and a staffer for The Herald.

Sweet currently lives in the Missouri Bootheel with his family, the pastoral setting which inspires his work.

title: User:The Iconoclast


text:
John Stanley (KG)

Sir John Stanley, KG (c. 1350–1414) of Lathom, near Ormskirk in Lancashire, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and titular King of Mann, the first of that name. He married a wealthy heiress, Isabel Lathom, which, combined with his own great abilities, allowed him to rise above the usual status of a younger son.

Origins
He was the second son of Sir William Stanley of Stourton, ) by his wife Alice Massey of Timperley, Cheshire. Sir William Stanley was Master-Forester of the Forest of Wirral and was notorious for his repressive activities.

Marriage and children
In 1385 he married Isabel Lathom, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Lathom of Lathom in Lancashire, a great landowner in south-west Lancashire. The marriage took place despite the opposition of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster and gave Stanley great wealth he could never have hoped for as the younger son. By his wife, he had four sons and two daughters, including:
 * Sir John Stanley (died 1437), eldest son and heir;
 * Henry Stanley;
 * Thomas Stanley;
 * Ralph Stanley

Crest of Lathom
The heraldic crest of Lathom (An eagle wings extended or preying on a child proper swaddled gules in a cradle laced or ) was adopted by Sir John Stanley and his descendants. An ancient myth ("the Stanley Legend"), of several varieties, is attached to the image depicted, one given by Thomas Stanley (died circa 1568), Bishop of Sodor and Man being that the "Lord of Lathom" was issueless and aged "fowerscore" adopted an infant "swaddled and clad in a mantle of redd," which an eagle brought unhurt to her nest in Terlestowe wood, and which he named Oskell, and made heir of Lathom, where he became the father of Isabel Stanley, stolen away in the first instance by her knight, and afterwards forgiven by Sir Oskell". The Stanley crest is today memorialised in the name of several English public houses displaying the sign of "The Eagle and Child", often situated within manors once held by the Stanley family.

Declared an outlaw
Both John Stanley and his elder brother, William Stanley (who succeeded their father as Master-Forester), were involved in criminal cases which charged them with a forced entry in 1369 and with the murder of Thomas Clotton in 1376. Conviction for the murder of Clotton resulted in Stanley being declared an outlaw. However, he was already distinguishing himself in military service in the French wars, and he was pardoned in 1378 at the insistence of his commander, Sir Thomas Trivet.

Justiciar of Ireland
The year 1386 saw his first appointment in Ireland as deputy to Robert de Vere, Duke of Ireland. This occurred because of the insurrection created by the friction between Sir Philip Courtenay, the English Lieutenant of Ireland, and his appointed governor James Butler, 3rd Earl of Ormond. Stanley led an expedition to Ireland on behalf of de Vere and King Richard II to quell it. He was accompanied by Bishop Alexander de Balscot of Meath and Sir Robert Crull. Butler joined them upon their arrival in Ireland. Because of the success of the expedition, Stanley was appointed to the position of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Alexander to Chancellor, Crull to Treasurer, and Butler to his old position as Governor. In 1389 Richard II appointed him Justiciar of Ireland, a post he held until 1391. He was heavily involved in Richard's first expedition to Ireland in 1394–1395.

Throughout the 1390s he was involved in placating possible rebellion in Cheshire. Between 1396 and 1398 he served as Captain of Roxburgh Castle. He took part in Richard II's expedition to Ireland in 1399. However, on his return to England, Stanley, who had long proved adept at political manoeuvring, turned his back on Richard and submitted to King Henry IV, the first of the House of Lancaster.

Under the Lancastrians
Stanley's fortunes were equally good under the Lancastrians. He was granted lordships in the Welsh Marches, and served a term as Lieutenant of Ireland. In 1403 he was made Steward of the Household of Henry, Prince of Wales, (later Henry V). Unlike many of the Cheshire gentry, he took the side of the king in the rebellion of the Percys. He was wounded in the throat at the Battle of Shrewsbury.

In 1405 he was granted the tenure of the Isle of Man, which had been confiscated from the rebellious Henry Percy, 1st Earl of Northumberland. In this period he also became Steward of the Household to King Henry IV, and was appointed by him a Knight of the Garter. In 1413 King Henry V of England sent him to serve once more as Lieutenant of Ireland. He summoned the Parliament, which met in Dublin in November 1413.

Death and burial
In 1414 he died at Ardee, County Louth, Ireland, after being satirised by the O'Higgins' of Meath for despoiling the lands and raiding the cows of Niall O'Higgins. He lasted but five weeks, according to the Four Masters, before succumbing "to the virulence of the lampoons". His body was returned to his home at Lathom and was buried at Burscough Priory near Ormskirk, about 3 miles south-west of Lathom. This was deemed in some quarters the second such "Poet's Miracle" performed by the O'Higgins.

Offices
During his career Stanley held the following offices:-
 * Lord Lieutenant of Ireland between 1386 and 1388.
 * Justiciar of Ireland between 1389 and 1391.
 * Justice of Chester in 1394
 * Controller of the Royal Household in 1399
 * Lieutenant of Ireland between 1399 and 1401
 * Steward of the Household to the Prince of Wales circa 1403, later King Henry V
 * Surveyor of the Forests of Macclesfield, Mare and Mondrem, Cheshire in 1403
 * Governor of the City and County of Cheshire in 1403
 * He was invested as a Knight, Order of the Garter (K.G.) circa 1405
 * Steward of Macclesfield in 1406

He was granted the Isle, Castle, Peel and Lordship of Mann, by King Henry IV of England
 * Sovereign Lord of the Isle of Man in 1406
 * Constable of Windsor Castle in 1409
 * Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (second term) from 1413 until his death in 1414.

Poet
It has been suggested that Stanley was the as-yet unidentified "Gawain Poet". The Garter motto "Honi soit qui mal y pense" appears at the end of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and the poet exhibits a detailed knowledge of both hunting and armour. Scholars identify the poet's dialect as that of north-west Staffordshire or south-east Cheshire.

title: John Stanley (KG)


text:
Gregor Fisher

Gregor Fisher (born 22 December 1953) is a Scottish comedian and actor. He is best known for his portrayal of the title character in the comedy series Rab C. Nesbitt, a role he has played since the show's first episode in 1988. He has also had roles in films such as Without a Clue (1988), Love Actually (2003), The Merchant of Venice (2004) and Whisky Galore! (2016).

Early life
Fisher was born in Menstrie, Clackmannanshire, and following the death of his mother was brought up in Edinburgh, Langholm, and Neilston and attended Barrhead High School. He attended the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama in Glasgow, at which he did not complete his studies.

Career
Fisher worked with Scottish comedian Rikki Fulton on his hit sketch series Scotch and Wry (whose broadcast was mainly restricted to BBC One Scotland). Another Scottish comedian he worked with was Hector Nicol, in the BBC drama Just a Boys' Game (1979).

Later, he appeared in Michael Radford's 1984 film Nineteen Eighty-Four as Winston Smith's neighbour Parsons. In 1988, he had a leading role in Silent Mouse, a dramatised television documentary telling the story of the creation of the Christmas carol Silent Night. In the same year he had a cameo (as a Victorian policeman) in the Michael Caine/Ben Kingsley vehicle, Without a Clue.

Fisher is best known for his portrayal of his character Rab C. Nesbitt in the sitcom of the same name, this itself was a spin-off from the BBC2 sketch comedy Naked Video, where the Nesbitt character originated, along with The Baldy Man who also obtained his own eponymous spin-off series, and is particularly associated with two Hamlet adverts involving photography, the first where he cannot get a satisfactory passport photo from a photobooth and lights up a cigar to calm himself down; the second where he cannot get a satisfactory family portrait and lights up a cigar to calm himself down. Johnny Depp based his Glaswegian accent for the role of Tarrant Hightopp, the Mad Hatter in the 2010 film Alice in Wonderland, on that used by Fisher’s Rab C. Nesbitt character.

In 1994–1995, he played the title role in the BBC series The Tales of Para Handy, in which he was reunited with Rikki Fulton. Fisher had also appeared in the 1999 sitcom Brotherly Love and in the 2002 sitcom Snoddy. He also appeared with Iain Glenn in the BBC Masterpiece theatre version of Kidnapped.

Fisher appeared in the 2000 BBC adaptation of Gormenghast. Fisher starred as a main character D.S. Doug Duvall in the drama Missing, made by SMG Productions in 2006, the two-part thriller was not broadcast on STV until November 2008. In November 2006, he starred as Grandpa Potts in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, in a three-month run of the show in Edinburgh. Most recently he has starred in the BBC's adaption of Oliver Twist, in the role of Mr Bumble.

In 2003, he appeared in the romantic comedy film Love Actually, where he played the role of the manager to fading music star, Billy Mack (Bill Nighy). In 2004, he played the role of Solanio in the Michael Radford film, The Merchant of Venice. In an interview in The Metro on 20 February 2008 he stated that he is no longer recognised as Rab C. Nesbitt, and rather is more likely to be stopped by fans for his recent role as Mr Bumble in Oliver Twist. Empty, a comedy series starring Fisher, began on BBC2 on 28 February 2008. On BBC2, on 23 December 2008, he reprised his role as Rab C Nesbitt in a Christmas special. Fisher's autobiography, The Boy from Nowhere, was published in 2015. To coincide with the publication, BBC One Scotland broadcast a documentary, In Search of Gregor Fisher, which followed Fisher and ghostwriter Melanie Reid during part of their research for the book.

title: Gregor Fisher


text:
Multiple system atrophy

Multiple system atrophy (MSA) is a rare neurodegenerative disorder characterized by tremors, slow movement, muscle rigidity, and postural instability (collectively known as parkinsonism), autonomic dysfunction and ataxia. This is caused by progressive degeneration of neurons in several parts of the brain including the basal ganglia, inferior olivary nucleus, and cerebellum.

Many people affected by MSA experience dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system, which commonly manifests as orthostatic hypotension, impotence, loss of sweating, dry mouth and urinary retention and incontinence. Palsy of the vocal cords is an important and sometimes initial clinical manifestation of the disorder.

A prion of the alpha-synuclein protein within affected neurons may cause MSA. About 55% of MSA cases occur in men, with those affected first showing symptoms at the age of 50–60 years. MSA often presents with some of the same symptoms as Parkinson's disease. However, those with MSA generally show little response to the dopamine agonists used to treat Parkinson's disease and only about 9% of MSA patients with tremor exhibit a true parkinsonian pill-rolling tremor.

MSA is distinct from multisystem proteinopathy, a more common muscle-wasting syndrome. MSA is also different from multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, sometimes referred to as multiple organ failure, and from multiple organ system failures, an often-fatal complication of septic shock and other severe illnesses or injuries.

Signs and symptoms
MSA is characterized by the following: Autonomic and at least one Motor (clinically established MSA criteria 2022)
 * autonomic dysfunction: Post-void urinary residual volume ≥100 mL (usually by ultrasound); Unexplained urinary urge incontinence; or Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (≥20/10 mmHg blood pressure drop) within 3 minutes (usually by head‐up tilt)
 * parkinsonism (muscle rigidity +/ tremor and slow movement: MSA-P)
 * cerebellar ataxia (Poor coordination/unsteady walking: MSA-C)

A variant with combined features of MSA and dementia with Lewy bodies may also exist. There have also been occasional instances of frontotemporal lobar degeneration associated with MSA.

Initial presentation
The most common first sign of MSA is the appearance of an "akinetic-rigid syndrome" (i.e. slowness of initiation of movement resembling Parkinson's disease) found in 62% at first presentation. Other common signs at onset include problems with balance (cerebellar ataxia) found in 22% at first presentation, followed by genito-urinary symptoms (9%): both men and women often experience urgency, frequency, incomplete bladder emptying, or an inability to pass urine (retention). About 1 in 5 MSA patients experience a fall in their first year of disease.

For men, the first sign can be erectile dysfunction. Women have also reported reduced genital sensitivity.

Progression
As the disease progresses, one of three groups of symptoms predominates. These are:
 * 1) Parkinsonism - slow, stiff movement, writing becomes small and spidery
 * 2) Cerebellar dysfunction - difficulty coordinating movement and balance
 * 3) Autonomic nervous system dysfunction - impaired automatic body functions, including one, some, or all of the following:
 * postural or orthostatic hypotension, resulting in dizziness or fainting upon standing up
 * urinary incontinence or urinary retention
 * impotence
 * constipation
 * vocal cord paralysis
 * dry mouth and skin
 * trouble regulating body temperature due to sweating deficiency in all parts of the body
 * loud snoring, abnormal breathing or inspiratory stridor during sleep
 * other sleep disorders including sleep apnea, REM behavior disorder
 * double vision
 * muscle twitches
 * Cognitive impairment

Genetics
One study found a correlation between the deletion of genes in a specific genetic region and the development of MSA in a group of Japanese patients. The region in question includes the SHC2 gene which, in mice and rats, appears to have some function in the nervous system. The authors of this study hypothesized that there may be a link between the deletion of the SHC2 and the development of MSA.

A follow-up study was unable to replicate this finding in American MSA patients. The authors of the study concluded that "Our results indicate that SHC2 gene deletions underlie few, if any, cases of well-characterized MSA in the US population. This is in contrast to the Japanese experience reported by Sasaki et al., likely reflecting heterogeneity of the disease in different genetic backgrounds."

Another study investigated the frequency of RFC1 intronic repeat expansions, a phenomenon implicated in CANVAS; a disease with a diagnostic overlap with MSA. The study concluded that these repeats were absent in pathologically confirmed MSA, suggesting an alternative genetic cause.

Pathophysiology
Multiple system atrophy can be explained as cell loss and gliosis or a proliferation of astrocytes in damaged areas of the central nervous system. This damage forms a scar which is then termed a glial scar. The presence of inclusion bodies known as Papp–Lantos bodies, in the movement, balance, and autonomic-control centres of the brain are the defining histopathologic hallmark of MSA.

The major filamentous component of Papp-Lantos bodies, glial and neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions, is alpha-synuclein. Mutations in this substance may play a role in the disease. The conformation of the alpha-synuclein is different from that of alpha-synuclein in Lewy bodies. The disease probably starts with an oligodendrogliopathy. It has been proposed that the α-synuclein inclusions found in Oligodendrocytes result from the pruning and the engulfment of diseased axonal segments containing aggregated α-synuclein, i.e., of Lewy neurites

Tau proteins have been found in some glial cytoplasmic inclusion bodies.

Clinical
Clinical diagnostic criteria were defined in 1998 and updated in 2007 and in 2022. Certain signs and symptoms of MSA also occur with other disorders, such as Parkinson's disease, making the diagnosis more difficult.

Radiologic
Both MRI and CT scanning may show a decrease in the size of the cerebellum and pons in those with cerebellar features (MSA-C). The putamen is hypointense on T2-weighted MRI and may show an increased deposition of iron in the Parkinsonian (MSA-P) form. In MSA-C, a "hot cross bun" sign is sometimes found; it reflects atrophy of the pontocerebellar tracts that give T2 hyper intense signal intensity in the atrophic pons.

MRI changes are not required to diagnose the disease as these features are often absent, especially early in the course of the disease. Additionally, the changes can be quite subtle and are usually missed by examiners who are not experienced with MSA.

Pathologic
Pathological diagnosis can only be made at autopsy by finding abundant GCIs on histological specimens of the central nervous system.

Contrary to most other synucleinopathies, which develop α-synuclein inclusions primarily in neuronal cell populations, MSA presents with extensive pathological α-synuclein inclusions in the cytosol of oligodendrocytes (glial cytoplasmic inclusions), with limited pathology in neurons. MSA also differs from other synucleinopathies in its regional pathological presentation, with α-synuclein positive inclusions detected predominantly in the striatum, midbrain, pons, medulla and cerebellum, rather than the brainstem, limbic and cortical regions typically effected in Lewy inclusion diseases. However, recent studies using novel, monoclonal antibodies specific for C-terminally truncated α-synuclein (αSynΔC) have now shown that neuronal α-synuclein pathology is more abundant than previously thought. One group revealed robust α-synuclein pathology in the pontine nuclei and medullary inferior olivary nucleus upon histological analysis of neurological tissue from MSA patients. Histopathological investigation on six cases of pathologically confirmed MSA, using antibodies directed at a variety of α-synuclein epitopes, revealed substantial variation in α-synuclein protein deposition across both cases and brain regions within cases, providing evidence for 'strains' of aggregated conformers that may differentially promote pathological prion-like spread.

In 2020, researchers at The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston concluded that protein misfolding cyclic amplification could be used to distinguish between two progressive neurodegenerative diseases, Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy, being the first process to give an objective diagnosis of Multiple System Atrophy instead of just a differential diagnosis.

Classification
MSA is one of several neurodegenerative diseases known as synucleinopathies: they have in common an abnormal accumulation of alpha-synuclein protein in various parts of the brain. Other synucleinopathies include Parkinson's disease, the Lewy body dementias, and other more rare conditions.

Old terminology
Historically, many terms were used to refer to this disorder, based on the predominant systems presented. These terms were discontinued by consensus in 1996 and replaced with MSA and its subtypes, but awareness of these older terms and their definitions is helpful to understanding the relevant literature prior to 1996. These include striatonigral degeneration (SND), olivopontocerebellar atrophy (OPCA), and Shy–Drager syndrome. A table describing the characteristics and modern names of these conditions follows:

Current terminology
The current terminology and diagnostic criteria for the disease were established at a 2007 conference of experts and set forth in a position paper. This Second Consensus Statement defines two categories of MSA, based on the predominant symptoms of the disease at the time of evaluation. These are:
 * MSA with predominant parkinsonism (MSA-P) - defined as MSA where extrapyramidal features predominate. It is sometimes termed striatonigral degeneration, a parkinsonian variant.
 * MSA with cerebellar features (MSA-C) - defined as MSA in which cerebellar ataxia predominates.  It is sometimes termed sporadic olivopontocerebellar atrophy.

Supervision
Ongoing care from a neurologist specializing in movement disorders is recommended, because the complex symptoms of MSA are often not familiar to less-specialized neurologists. Hospice/homecare services can be very useful as disability progresses.

Drug therapy
Levodopa (L-Dopa), a drug used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease, improves parkinsonian symptoms in a small percentage of MSA patients. A recent trial reported that only 1.5% of MSA patients experienced any improvement at all when taking levodopa, their improvement was less than 50%, and even that improvement was a transient effect lasting less than one year. Poor response to L-Dopa has been suggested as a possible element in the differential diagnosis of MSA from Parkinson's disease.

The drug riluzole is ineffective in treating MSA or PSP.

Rehabilitation
Management by rehabilitation professionals including physiatrists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, and others for difficulties with walking/movement, daily tasks, and speech problems is essential.

Physiotherapists can help to maintain the patient's mobility and will help to prevent contractures. Instructing patients in gait training will help to improve their mobility and decrease their risk of falls. A physiotherapist may also prescribe mobility aids such as a cane or a walker to increase the patient's safety.

Speech therapists may assist in assessing, treating and supporting speech (dysarthria) and swallowing difficulties (dysphagia). Speech changes mean that alternative communication may be needed, for example, communication aids or word charts.

Early intervention of swallowing difficulties is particularly useful to allow for discussion around tube feeding further in the disease progression. At some point in the progression of the disease, fluid and food modification may be implemented.

Avoidance of postural hypotension
One particularly serious problem, the drop in blood pressure upon standing up (with risk of fainting and thus injury from falling), often responds to fludrocortisone, a synthetic mineralocorticoid. Another common drug treatment is the alpha-agonist midodrine.

Non-drug treatments include "head-up tilt" (elevating the head of the whole bed by about 10 degrees), salt tablets or increasing salt in the diet, generous intake of fluids, and pressure (elastic) stockings. Avoidance of triggers of low blood pressure, such as hot weather, alcohol, and dehydration, are crucial. The patient can be taught to move and transfer from sitting to standing slowly to decrease risk of falls and limit the effect of postural hypotension. Instruction in ankle pumping helps to return blood in the legs to the systemic circulation. Other preventative measures are raising the head of the bed by 8 in (20.3 cm), and the use of compression stockings and abdominal binders.

Support
Social workers and occupational therapists can also help with coping with disability through the provision of equipment and home adaptations, services for caregivers and access to healthcare services, both for the person with MSA as well as family caregivers.

Prognosis
The average lifespan after the onset of symptoms in patients with MSA is 6–10 years. Approximately 60% of patients require a wheelchair within five years of onset of the motor symptoms, and few patients survive beyond 12 years. The disease progresses without remission at a variable rate. Those who present at an older age, those with parkinsonian features, and those with severe autonomic dysfunction have a poorer prognosis. Those with predominantly cerebellar features and those who display autonomic dysfunction later have a better prognosis.

Causes of death
The most common causes of death are sudden death and death caused by infections, which include urinary catheterization infections, feeding tube infections, and aspiration pneumonia. Some deaths are caused by cachexia, also known as wasting syndrome.

Epidemiology
Multiple system atrophy is estimated to affect approximately 5 per 100,000 people. At autopsy, many patients diagnosed during life with Parkinson's disease are found actually to have MSA, suggesting that the actual incidence of MSA is higher than that estimate. While some suggest that MSA affects slightly more men than women (1.3:1), others suggest that the two sexes are equally likely to be affected. The condition most commonly presents in persons aged 50–60.

Research
Mesenchymal stem cell therapy may delay the progression of neurological deficits in patients with MSA-cerebellar type.

Notable cases

 * Nikolai Andrianov was a Soviet/Russian gymnast who held the record for men for the most Olympic medals at 15 (7 gold medals, 5 silver medals, 3 bronze medals) until Michael Phelps surpassed him at the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics.
 * Todd J. Campbell (1956–2021), United States district judge and counsel to former Vice President Al Gore.
 * Singer and songwriter Johnny Cash wrote in his autobiography that he was diagnosed with Shy–Drager in 1997.
 * Ronald Green (1944–2012), American-Israeli basketball player
 * Joseph C. Howard Sr. was the first African American to serve as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
 * Kenneth More British actor, originally diagnosed with Parkinson's disease.
 * Chef Kerry Simon died from complications of MSA.
 * David Colin Sherrington FRS (1945–2014), noted polymer chemist, who was diagnosed in 2012 and died from pneumonia two years later.

title: Multiple system atrophy