text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - Keep

2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls

 * Keep : I see no reason to delete this article, it's well written, precise, and merely reviewing the opinions of some. Taking it down would indicate that some viewpoints are not considered important. It's historic importance qualify's it for an entry. Coolgamer 00:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep (User: Mvb): Controversy means information, information about meanings that is. Wikipedia is meant to contain information and hence this controversy. The world should have information on how the US citizens think about democracy.

For those of you keeping score at home, why yes, we do have two separate articles on how the exit polls are evidence of voter fraud in the 2004 election. WHY DO YOU ASK? Snowspinner 06:45, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep--144.132.235.43 05:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I see this is the second time you've listed this article. what the heck do you think you're doing? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It appears that I am mistaken. The main article got forked and now the subarticle is being listed for deletion. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Keep. Everyone, just shut up. You all be quiet. I just hate Republicans who think that Wikipedia should be under their control.
 * Fool. Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, Inc. already owns the Foundation. --Slowking Man 05:51, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. For my rationale, see my entry at Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression, most or all of which applies to this article as well. --Slowking Man 06:56, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything I had to say on the matter has been said already. Reene (リニ) 07:02, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * And yet (as you quite rightly pointed out) this is a seperate article that should be voted for deletion on its own merits. How interesting. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would like to use this space to send out a hearty thank you to Snowspinner for finding all this junk. Indrian 07:12, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the VfD for this material was already voted on and it already failed. Those who think that it is nothing but "crackpot theories" already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Those who think that it is nothing but irreparable POV already had their chance to argue that reason for its deletion.  They failed.  Nothing has changed; they should not get a second free shot.  I find it deeply ironic that so many of the people who are demanding that the same issues be rehashed over and the vote retaken in the hopes that this will come out the way they want it...  are the ones finding it "crackpot" that anyone should be questioning the voting in the Presidential election.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:43, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Feel free to question the results of the election all you want, just be sure to keep it to one reasonably sized article. If one article is good enough for Napoleon and Adolph Hitler, then one article will certainly suffice for such a minor topic as this one. Indrian 07:52, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page, and the other subpages, were created in response to the claim that 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy was getting too long. Instead of deleting information, new subpages were created. I think this was a good idea. As Antaeus Feldspar notes above, this information was in an article that was voted to be kept. The information is the same, it was just reorganized into subpages.   — Asbestos | Talk 08:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete If the main article is too long, it is the fault of the authors who have zealously faught off attempts to bring it into proper, minor, perspective. -- Netoholic @ 08:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete, as before - RedWordSmith 09:29, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete One article about alleged irregularities is plenty. More than that is spamming one's bias across an encyclopedia. For the record, I think the lesser man won the election,and believe there may have been irregularities, but keep it to the article that already exists and keep it written as an encyclopedia entry would be written. These extra articles are just total abuse and nonsense. DreamGuy 11:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, From the Wikipedia deletion policy page: "If an article is constantly being deleted and re-created, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!"  I should think the same logic would apply to an article which is kept and continues to experience active development despite repeated attempts to delete it.  It is by definition and title a controversy, and repeated requests to delete it are simply part of that controversy and thus show that its existence is warranted.  --Cortonin 13:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: this has been listed once before!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Claim that this has been VfDed before appears incorrect, and same problems as the others. Securiger 14:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The content has been voted on before. The page was split into sub-pages because it was too long as a single piece, as noted by User:Asbestos above and User:RyanFreisling below. if you want to discuss the structure, discuss the structure; whether or not it should be merged.   But the content has already been voted on, with an overwhelming majority for keep.  Listing the content on VfD again is an abuse, as stated by User:Cortonin above and User:Korath below.  Kevin Baas | talk 20:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. My comments on Votes for deletion/2004_U.S._election_voting_controversies%2C_Florida apply here also.  --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should not have to vote on all these subpages to indicate our intent. Instead of as censors, those proposing deletion should have (and have not) contributed their opinions, etc., as authors. They have not, and instead are involved in this noxious behavior. The subpages are an effort to streamline and focus the original article, and compartmentalize the irregularities. The issue, despite some individual's assertions, IS sizable and complex enough to warrant the extent of content, and the subpages must not be seen as new opportunities to poach or 'pick off' areas of this article.-- RyanFreisling @ 17:19, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. From the first VFD: "Those who have voted here have done so and honored the VfD, despite the (unproven but widely held) suspicion by many that the vote was a sham, and a tactic used to damage a disliked article.... In addition, many have commented upon the high level of interest in this article and the harm that this VfD label does it, and that its clarification is urgent to them."  Relisting on VFD after less than three weeks is an abuse. Korath 17:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I suppose I would have to agree with that to an extent (I did not know, nor did I care to know, that these pages were up for a vote three weeks ago), but the far greater abuse here is the spamming of wikipedia that these articles represent. A good man lost; a bad man won; there were glitches; ok, fine, lets have a page on it for posterity, no problem.  Now, the problem comes when a few overzealous partisans with an axe to grind take a minor event in the history of the world (the 2004 presidential election) then take a minor facet of that event (voting irregularities) and write a half dozen subarticles on the topic.  In general, if an article is too long, then the article is a poorly constructed mess.   The history of nations or world religions or individuals such as Jesus Christ that were so important that they changed the entire course of Western civilization are such massive, complex topics that one article may not be enough.  The 2004 election is a footnote in history.

 * Is this election more important in United States history than the 1876 election, when the fate of Reconstruction, race relations, and the preservation of the Union hung in the balance thanks to a few irregularities and the winner had to live with the name Ruthefraud for the rest of his life? Maybe, I am not the one to make that call, but if that controversy can be covered briefly, then so can this one.  What about 1860 when there were not really any irregularities, but the result led to a bloody Civil War?  That one certainly seems to have been far more important in United States history, yet it is also covered succinctly.  The 1824 eletion, when the winner of the popular vote lost because the other candidates got together to deny him the office, is not even remembered today.  This election will be similarly relegated to the backburner of history, making so many articles on the topic seem rather silly.  If a writer went to any professionally produced encyclopedia in the world, even one that was online and had no space constraints like wikipedia, with the idea to produce this many articles on this one event, he would be laughed out of the editor's room.  If the community of wikipedia users does not have the same response, then I think it reflects poorly on the project and shows the world that instead of trying to create a real encyclopedia we are indulging in petty nitpicking and complaining about every insignificant thing that bothers us when we get up in the morning. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox or even an election analysis center.  The subarticles do not belong. Indrian 18:09, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree that this election is not more notable, but data is more readily avalible, which leads to a bigger article. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:25, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * The article(s) are big precisely because there were many irregularities with the 2004 U.S. election, though I agree there is much room for improvement. It should also be noted the article is a current event, so half of people's efforts were spent just staying on top of things. Please help us to reduce verbosity where you can. zen master 18:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I do thank you for the invitation and want to emphasize that this is a topic that should be covered, just not in so many articles. Unfortunately, I think that my solution, getting rid of most of the graphs and examples and just sticking with the basic facts and how they shaped the results and then eliminating all these subarticles and making them redirects, would be considered vandalism by some of the more zealous here and quickly reverted. Indrian 18:24, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then why are you voting delete as opposed to move or merge? The need for having the articles on wikipedia in the first place stems from the presence of signicicant election data irregularities, you can't show data irregularities easily in paragraph form.  Charts and graphs are needed.  Though I agree there is much room for cleanup. zen master 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rerdavies 04:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) Keep this article. Abuse of process, waste of time. Unless you are getting paid to keep the Electoral coup a secret. Which would be really funny, considering the secret is pretty much out already. Pedant 23:25, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Keep Parent article overwhelming survived VfD a couple of weeks ago. These are sub articles with the same, better organized, content.  Please see additional voting and comments on the VfD page for voter suppression (ironic). zen master 18:22, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiki is not a blog Wyss 19:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has already been resolved. Kevin Baas | talk 19:27, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Keep. JamesMLane 20:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep the article is improved, for clarity, by being split up, and this was by consensus where people had a chance to state if they wanted it split or didnt. The consensus - and many people contributed to the debate - was that they did. As to the article itself, it was voted keep by about 72 keep - 6 delete a bare few weeks ago. It's not clear in what manner the article is less fit to keep, less encyclopediac, or less or general interest now that more official bodies are taking action.  If there are issues with its size or layout then perhaps consider contributing.  But deletion is inappropraite as deletion criteria are not at all applicable - exactly as they weren't a bare few weeks ago. FT2 20:23, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 20:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seperating the original long article in to subarticles is a great idea, as it makes for better organization.  Remeber that this is what hypertext is best for.  Why keep the information in flat format in one very long article when there can be some decent heirarchy where people can click on parts they're interested in and be presented with the detail they want to see? noosphere 21:03, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
 * Delete Boring, discredited and repetetive. A2Kafir 23:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Mark Richards 01:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot see any reason for this listing. Is Snowspinner suggesting that there should be a change in policy on subarticles?Dr Zen 02:05, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The use of exit polls in determining the veracity of elections is an important factor worldwide. This article should be kept, since these issues are still being actively researched.  If there are concerns about particular facts they should be addressed and incorporated. --Boscobiscotti 03:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Boscobiscotti's vote is not valid. Reene (リニ) 03:51, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Stupidly strong keep. Andre ( talk )A| 03:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's usual and good practice to break out long articles into subarticles. I agree some trimming could be done, but not at a ratio of 6:1 which is what would be needed to remove the need for sub-pages. Shane King 03:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Honestly! These numerous VfDs verge on harassment. The mainpage VfD didn't succeed. Why should VfDs on sub-articles succeed?
 * Vote is invalid. Reene✎ 07:22, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rather, vote validity is disputed. Kevin Baas | talk 07:34, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really up for dispute. I've addressed the objections this user has raised concerning this on his talk page as he doesn't seem to quite understand how this sort of thing works (understandable as the user is new). The vote doesn't count. That is really quite simple. Reene✎ 07:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ultimately, that's for the adminstrator that counts the votes to decide. Said administrator is welcome to follow the link provided and read what you have said. I assume you have no objection to this. Kevin Baas | talk 07:42, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree strongly with Cortonin above. Avenue 05:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, a garbage POV article from bullshit sources that would take far too much time to clean up for any usefull information. TDC 07:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Needs heavy NPOVing, but any subject that has merited two independent studies from Caltech, Berkeley and MIT is certainly a subject we should have something on. Johnleemk | Talk 10:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cleanup might be possible if it could be done in good faith which I doubt.. Usually, when election results differ from some opinion polls, it is the validity of the poll that is questioned not the legitimacy of the election result. In mainstream opinion, the problem was that the exit polls didn't sample correctly not that the vote was wrong. This article is hopelessly POV. For example, Dick Morris is taken hopelessly out of context: he was stating that the media screwed up the exit polling. Capitalistroadster 11:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The discrepancies between previously reliable polling methods and the results obtained with the use of new technologies deserves airing.Dabbler 16:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Guettarda 16:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Josquin 17:44, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep --- While there are many sub-articles the main article would be far too long if they would instead be included there. // Liftarn 19:14, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 19:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant.  ElBenevolente 23:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep TalkHard 23:47, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abuse of VfD process. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\talk ]] 01:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a lot of data here, so it warrants a sub-article. Also see my comments on the main VfD vote PenguiN42 16:37, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep This merits a seperate article. --L33tminion | (talk) 21:21, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * 		¡	Keep	!			--	Ŭalabio 03:19, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
 * Calling it abuse doesn't make it so- these are all unnecessary daughter articles to a parent article that is far too large (they only exist for that reason as a matter of fact). And I think the Democrats disagree on the whole "electoral coup" thing. Remember them? They're the guys that lost in the first place. Reene✎ 23:41, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic itself seems valid. It's not a perfect article yet, but it's definitely a topic that should covered from all sides. --Sketchee 10:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Note: Voting and discussion on related articles listed for VfD here:
 * 1) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities
 * 2) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls
 * 3) Votes_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy,_vote_suppression
 * 4) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines
 * 5) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida
 * 6) Votes for deletion/2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio

Comments
Despite claims by the peanut gallery, none of these sub-pages have been VfD'd before and the VfD for the main article was over weeks ago. Since then the page has grown and changed considerably and has become bloated to the point of absurdity. This is not, however, an excuse to scatter the mess that is this article all over Wikipedia. The issue at hand here is not the main article; for that, go to the appropriate VfD page. The issue at hand is whether or not these subpages need to be deleted. As they've been created as the result of unnecessary bloat and a few zealous editors that I understand have been preventing anyone from cleaning up the page to a reasonable degree, these need to be put BACK in the main article and cleaned up. Reene (リニ) 21:39, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Posting this comment on every page is awkward wiki form, but here's my reply.

 * Again, if you allege that 'a few zealous editors have been preventing anyone...' etc., I'd ask for proof. That kind of behavior is intolerable. Would you like to help to improve the article? Because no-one is prohibited from doing so. -- RyanFreisling @ 22:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have never seen you before, Reene, on any of these pages. Nor have I seen anyone who's contributions were not welcome (Netoholic was on the main page, not the articles in question, and an administrator requested a temporary injunction against him obstruction and rude behavior, not for "cleaning the article".)  I looked through the page histories for the articles and the talk pages, and conclude that either a) someone has messed with the page histories, or b) you are blatently lying in order to push a politcal agenda.  In either case, there is definitely a serious problem.  Kevin Baas | talk 22:31, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

 * To make it absolutely obvious what is going on with this particular article, here is a list of every user who edited this particular article from its inception until Snowspinner came along and put a vfd on it:
 * Kevin baas
 * User:FT2

 * That's it. Not one single attempt has been made by those proposing the deletion to perform a cleanup.  Reene has been misinformed; nobody has attempted to prevent anybody performing a cleanup of this article.  The sections may have been subject to an edit war prior to being split; I will investigate that possibility also, on the appropriate VfD page.

It's a shame, I think, that since the vfd was placed and while discussion of this article was ongoing, one user has twice today edited the page to a redirect to articles called U.S. presidential election, 2004 and 2004 U.S. presidential election. I would have preferred to see the user in question show good faith by waiting for a consensus to be reached. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I never thought that Wiki was so riven with partisans. The whole VfD tag in the middle of a discussion, on a page that had lost of community involvement - and, if nothing else, on a page that was encyclopedic - seems petty and childish. Edit, argue, flame one another - but VfD the page? Isn't that kinda like taking your marbles home and not letting anyone play because your can't get your way? Guettarda 23:12, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Talk:Hack (video game)

Don't know
i nee help i dont know what the heck this is or how to work i made a little edit thing on one page and i cant do it again help
 * Try Help. Robin Johnson (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There are no character classes or pets in Hack. Only in Nethack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.169.187 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 9 August 2006
 * Untrue - in the longest-standing version of hack (1.0.3) there weere six character classes - Fighter, Tourist, Speleologist, Cave-man, Knight, Wizard. There were also pet dogs (no cats). Robin Johnson (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

 * You are mistaken - that is nethack, not hack. Hack did not have pets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.254 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 August 2007

 * The version of Hack I played had pets. Well, a pet dog anyhow. - And yeah, I think it was 1.0.3. Nethack came much later and I thought they ruined the game. The Keystone Kops just made it too easy. Gatoclass 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, Hack 1.0.3 had dogs as pets. I don't recall whether that was a prior addition or not (as 1.0.3 was more or less the end of original, official development). Look at hack.dog.c in the source distribution to Hack for very clear evidence that Hack did in fact have pets. D.brodale 20:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

"This article does not cite any references or sources"
I am a proud lifetime computer geek. I remember Truscott, I remember Usenet before Godwin's anecdote, and still... The article is short. I see no error in it, but still...

I am unable to "cite any references or sources."

Why? Because my memories do not qualify. I am almost 60 now, the dying breed, a hacker born without a computer. If only I had a video recorder back then, or a blog...

Perhaps I should put up a web page and use that as a reference? -- 194.215.123.93 (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Release date in lead section
Well, This article maybe be small and adding the release date in lead may seem like pointless repetition but according to WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, "[in the] Lead section: The name of the game in bold italics, its gameplay genre, release date, platform, and other identifying information go first." The lead first para should present the basic background information (in this case, release dates etc) per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH. Just as how the infobox (which summarises the article, like the lead) has the release date, so does the lead section need to have it. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Created in 1982. Release date 1984. "A 1984 game..." Ummm, someone should straighten out the years references in this article... Oathed (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Interface
It's wrong to say that Hack has a GUI, it's not, it's a text-based interface. Heck, it's clear as day if you click on the included link to "graphical user interface". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.212.12.111 (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Dog
I worked with Andries Brouwer at what became CWI in 1982. Andries always had his dog with him, so the first thing he added to the Lincoln-Sudbury "hack" was a dog. For more detail, see the postscript to this blog post. DavidSHRosenthal (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

FIZIho ŠÍLENÁ výzva
67 FIZIcoin 89.24.49.214 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Hack (video game)


text:
Francisco Scaramanga

Francisco Scaramanga is a fictional character and the main antagonist in the James Bond novel and film version of The Man with the Golden Gun. Scaramanga is an assassin who kills with his signature weapon, a pistol made of solid gold. In the novel, the character is nicknamed "Pistols" Scaramanga and is also called "Paco" (a Spanish diminutive of Francisco). In the film, the character was played by Christopher Lee (the real-life step-cousin of James Bond creator Ian Fleming).

As with another of James Bond's nemeses, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, in 2007 the Daily Mail reported that the inspiration for this fictional character was a classmate of Fleming's, at Eton College in the 1920s, George Ambrosios (Ambrose) Scaramanga.

Novel biography
Francisco Scaramanga, of Spanish (Catalonia) origin, became a trick shot while a youngster, and he performed in a circus owned by his father Enrico. Francisco also cared for one of the circus elephants, which he stated was his only real friend. When the elephant went on a rampage during the circus visit to Trieste, Scaramanga witnessed a policeman kill it. The enraged boy, who was 16 at the time, retaliated by shooting the policeman through the eye. He then made his way to the United States from Naples, where he found employment as an enforcer for the Spangled Mob, an outfit that plays a role in two other Bond novels: Diamonds Are Forever (where they were the main foe of Agent 007) and Goldfinger as an accomplice to Auric Goldfinger's Operation Grandslam. He posed as a pitboy at the casino of Tiara Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada, while in fact he was executioner of cheats and other transgressors within and outside the gang. In 1958 he was forced to emigrate from the US because of his gun duel with Ramon "The Rod" Rodriguez, his opposite from the Purple Gang of Detroit (also featured in the novel Goldfinger), in which he killed Ramon, earning $100,000. He spent some time travelling the Caribbean as a representative of Las Vegas interests in real estate and plantation dealing, later switching to Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic and Fulgencio Batista of Cuba where he settled in 1959, in Havana. While remaining a Batista supporter, he started an undercover work for Fidel Castro's party, becoming an "enforcer" for DSS after the Cuban Revolution.

By the time Bond finally encounters him in The Man with the Golden Gun, Scaramanga works as a freelance assassin, often working for Castro's secret police, in addition to being engaged in other criminal enterprises such as drug-running into the United States in partnership with the KGB. MI6 has evaluated Scaramanga as one of the finest shots in the world, and M authorizes Bond to assassinate the gunman — if he can.

Bond catches up with Scaramanga in Jamaica, where Bond pretends to be a freelance security officer named Mark Hazard. and Scaramanga hires him to guard an upcoming meeting of gangsters. During the meeting, a Dutch-born KGB officer named Hendricks reveals Bond's identity, resulting in a shootout between Scaramanga and Bond. Bond wounds him, but before Bond can kill Scaramanaga, Scaramanga shoots Bond with a poisoned bullet from his backup weapon, a golden derringer. Bond returns fire with his .32 Walther PPK pistol, killing Scaramanga instantly; soon thereafter, a policeman finds the nearly dead Bond in time to save him.

In the novel, British intelligence also has an in-depth psychological profile of Scaramanga, which is printed in the book before the mission begins. He is 6 ft tall, slim and fit. He is about 35 years old and has light brown eyes. His hair is reddish in a crew-cut with long sideburns. The profile (read by M) also delves into his background and psyche. Among other things, the profile claims that Scaramanga might be a latent homosexual, since he cannot whistle—based on the popular (but unfounded) theory that a man who cannot whistle has homosexual tendencies.

Film biography
In the feature film The Man with the Golden Gun, Scaramanga is a high-priced assassin, supposedly the best in the world, charging US$1 million per kill. He is best known for being "the man with the golden gun", for using only bullets made of gold in a custom 4.2 mm cartridge with a disassemblable golden handgun made of a gold cigarette case, gold cigarette lighter, gold fountain pen and gold cufflink as the gun's trigger. All of Scaramanga's assassination contracts are arranged through his henchman Nick Nack, which allows Scaramanga to be anonymous. His specialized ammunition is made by a custom gunsmith in Macau, who provides for its delivery to Scaramanga's lover, Andrea Anders, at a casino in Hong Kong.

Francisco Scaramanga was a British national born in a travelling circus. His father was the ringmaster, a former Cuban national and his mother was the snake charmer. By age 10, Francisco was part of the circus as a trick-shot pistol marksman. At age 15, he became an international assassin-for-hire. He was recruited some years later by the KGB while living in Ipanema, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; and trained in Eastern Europe where for many years he was basically just another "overworked and underpaid assassin" for the KGB. He quit the KGB in the late 1950s, becoming an independent hitman-for hire. No photographs of him exist, but he has an unusual anatomy: a third nipple. This information later comes in handy to Bond, who uses Scaramanga's anonymity and only known physical feature to get into contact with Scaramanga's current employer, the crime lord Hai-Fat—though Scaramanga is already at Hai-Fat's estate, and Hai-Fat quickly guesses who Bond really is.

Later in the film, Scaramanga reveals to Bond that as a boy living in the travelling circus, he shot and killed an abusive animal trainer for killing an elephant that he had befriended—and discovered that he "enjoyed killing people". Scaramanga also demonstrates his marksmanship to Bond by using a Colt Single Action Army to shoot the cork off a bottle of champagne from long range (Scaramanga's golden gun in the novel is a gold-plated Single Action Army), later dismissing it as a toy.

Scaramanga lives very well, drawing from the exorbitant sums of money he charges to carry out his assassinations. His home is on his own personal island somewhere off the coast of southeastern China—paying for lease of the island and protection through assassinations ('favours') for the Chinese. Despite his assertion that "science was never [his] strong point," the island utilizes many aspects of modern technology, including its own self-sufficient solar power plant. In addition to the power plant, Scaramanga's home also includes a section which is something between a labyrinth and a funhouse, where Scaramanga and his foes duel to the death. Nick Nack hires assassins to kill Scaramanga as a challenge to keep him sharp; moreover Nick Nack will also inherit Scaramanga's entire fortune should one of the assassins succeed. Scaramanga is well aware of and approves of Nick Nack's efforts, and wishes him better luck next time when his hired guns fail. In addition, Scaramanga also has a private junk, which Bond later steals to exit the exploding island.

Scaramanga also uses some of his wealth to finance research and development of technologies that rival those developed by MI6's Q Branch. Such technologies include a car that transforms into an aircraft and a solar-powered laser cannon.

Scaramanga was hired by Hai-Fat to assassinate a British scientist named Gibson, thought to be in possession of solar energy information and technology crucial to solving the energy crisis. Gibson is assassinated and his invention, the solex agitator, is stolen from the crime scene by Nick Nack. The solex agitator is a critical component of Gibson's solar energy device. However, instead of turning the device over to Hai-Fat, Scaramanga instead kills Hai-Fat with his golden gun and takes the device for himself. With it in his possession, it allows for him to sell the device to the highest criminal bidder or use it to power his personal solar energy cannon.

Scaramanga also desires to test his skills against Bond, whom he regards as his only worthy rival. Besides the profit and/or power the solex agitator can give him, Scaramanga's scheme in acquiring the device is also intended to lure Bond to Scaramanga's private island so that the two of them can engage in one final, decisive duel. Although Bond is using his six-bullet .380 Walther PPK pistol while Scaramanga uses the golden gun, Scaramanga states that "[He] only need[s] one"—Bond's superior number of bullets being offset by Scaramanga's advantages of fighting on his own ground.

After taking Bond's fellow MI6 agent Mary Goodnight hostage, Scaramanga lures Bond to his private island, where he reveals his plan and challenges Bond to a duel in his funhouse, after a tense discussion where Scaramanga told Bond they were "the same", enraging Bond to the point where he admitted to Scaramanga that "killing you would be a pleasure". Once in the funhouse, Bond takes the place of a mannequin "James Bond" and tricks Scaramanga into revealing his position to look for Bond with his pistol drawn. Bond shoots Scaramanga in the heart, killing him, while Goodnight inadvertently sabotages the solar power plant which causes the destruction of the island.

Henchmen

 * Nick Nack
 * Kra
 * Andrea Anders

Hit list
This is the death toll caused by Scaramanga in the film.
 * Rodney, arguably the same Slumber Inc. employee from Diamonds Are Forever
 * Dan Gibson, inventor of the solex agitator
 * Hai-Fat
 * Andrea Anders

In addition, Scaramanga is revealed to have been behind the murder of Bill Fairbanks, MI6 Agent 002, in 1969.

The Golden Gun
In Ian Fleming's novel, the Golden Gun was a long-barrelled, gold-plated, single-action Colt Peacemaker .45 calibre revolver that fired silver-jacketed bullets with a solid gold core and a cross-cut tip for additional wounding due to the dum-dum effect. However, in the film, it was a single-shot weapon that fired a custom-made 4.2 mm dum-dum bullet made of 23-carat gold with traces of nickel, which Scaramanga carried on his belt buckle. The movie gun could be disassembled and its components disguised as a fountain pen (the barrel), a cigarette lighter (breech), cuff-link (trigger), and a cigarette case (the grip), all gold plated.

Scaramanga used the Golden Gun in numerous assassinations of officials, political enemies, gangsters, and a 00-agent, Bill Fairbanks (002). Scaramanga later used the Golden Gun to kill British scientist Gibson and Scaramanga's own employer, Hai-Fat. But, when Scaramanga was killed and his island destroyed, the Golden Gun was presumably also lost.

The Golden Gun ranked sixth in a 2008 20th Century Fox poll of the most popular film weapons, which surveyed approximately two thousand film fans.

In October 2008, the Golden Gun was stolen from the company Elstree Props which is based in Elstree Studios in Hertfordshire. At the time, the prop was estimated to be worth £80,000.

Video games
Francisco Scaramanga is a playable character in the multiplayer portions of the 2003 game 007: Nightfire and the 2010 game GoldenEye 007. In the original GoldenEye 007 game, Scaramanga's weapon, the golden gun, was initially added to the "Egyptian" level and multiplayer portion of the game. It is said in the briefing for the "Egyptian" mission that the Golden Gun was stolen from Scaramanga by Baron Samedi. Also, the multiplayer-only fan remake GoldenEye: Source features the weapon as well.

Due to its popularity it was also added into subsequent James Bond games 007: The World is Not Enough, 007: Agent Under Fire, 007: Nightfire, 007: Everything or Nothing, GoldenEye: Rogue Agent, 007: From Russia With Love, 007: Quantum of Solace, GoldenEye 007 and 007 Legends. In The World is Not Enough for the Nintendo 64, the gun must be assembled from the pen, lighter, and case before it could be used. In each of the games (except Everything or Nothing), the golden gun would count for an instant kill, which reflected that Scaramanga never missed, although in the games the player can and because of this, the golden gun is not available in single player mode (except Everything or Nothing) but golden versions of the game's standard weapon(s) are usually available (such as a golden Walther PPK, P99, and a golden rocket launcher). In GoldenEye, the Golden Gun appears in a special mission. In the mission, the Golden Gun is stolen by Baron Samedi, and Bond needs to defeat Samedi and recover the Golden Gun. Although Samedi is not killed (referencing Live and Let Die), Bond escapes with the Golden Gun. Other variants of the Golden Gun also exist, such as the Golden PP7 and the Silver PP7. The Golden Gun also appears in the video game Quantum of Solace. In Quantum of Solace the Golden Gun appears to be based on the design on the gun from the novel (a gold-plated revolver), rather than the design used in the film. It is likely to be based on a Smith & Wesson Model 686 in the game. Perfect Dark, made by GoldenEye developer Rareware, also featured a Golden Gun which would count for an instant kill, this time a customized Colt Python revolver belonging to NSA boss Trent Easton.

Francisco Scaramanga returned for the game GoldenEye: Rogue Agent voiced by Christopher Lee. In the game, he is an ally of Auric Goldfinger. He is the manufacturer of the synthetic eye given to the player (GoldenEye) and makes a virus used against Goldfinger's O.M.E.N. device. The game also features a Multiplayer "Funhouse" level, including the traps that caused Bond to lose most of his bullets such as Al Capone and Cowboy mannequins and an image of Scaramanga. In addition, the level includes a Bond mannequin, whose gun the player can take and use.

Reception
Francisco Scaramanga was listed at number five in UGO's list of the Top 11 Classy Assassins.

Chris Nashawaty of Entertainment Weekly argues that Scaramanga is the best villain of the Roger Moore James Bond films.

In genetics
A gene linked to the cause of supernumerary nipples in animals is named the "Scaramanga gene".

title: Francisco Scaramanga


text:
WinImages

Black Belt Systems WinImages is a bitmap graphics editor and special effects applicator that supports both automation of editing tasks and animation of effects. WinImages is a MDI application which runs under Windows 95 and later versions of Microsoft Windows.

WinImages began life in 1985 as a product called ImageMaster. It was ported to Windows in 1989, which is when the name was changed to WinImages.

As of December 2004, WinImages is at version 7.5.

Summary of WinImages features

 * Timeline for animation on still image, and animation on animation
 * 177 image manipulation operation classes in 15 functional groups
 * 790 built-in static or timeline-aware controls
 * Unlimited number of scripted timeline-aware controls
 * Integral ray tracer with timeline-aware engine
 * Integral heightfield renderer with timeline-aware engine
 * Integral particle system renderer with timeline-aware engine
 * Integral texture generator with timeline-aware engine
 * 74 layer modes, the usual 20 or so, plus unusual modes like geometric warping
 * 14 area selection tools
 * Embedded custom scripting language similar to BASIC
 * RGB, HSV, CMY and CMYK color separation
 * Open plug-in specification (presumes C is development language) with services
 * Reads 340 variations of 22 different bitmap image file types
 * Writes 25 variations of 13 different bitmap image file types
 * Additional animation types are extended by Windows 32-bit CODECS

title: WinImages


text:
User talk:Diode~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 06:53, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Ja Ga  talk 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

PLEASE NOTE:

 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

 * If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Diode. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Diode~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diode~enwiki


text:
Talk:MassMoca

(endorsement)
Truly a sight to behold. For any passers-by, this is well worth the time.

Dispute with artist
I recall a big fuss, prolly in the 1995-2005 period, when there was a big fuss between the museum and anartist who sued the museum for not carrying thru with a big exhibit museum scrubbed when the work was well advanced. Seems to me a big paper (NYT? BGlobe?) headlined abt a monetary settlement that ended with an impressive string of zeros going to the artist. Hopefully not the most important tthing we should include, but i seeno mention at all. --Jerzy•t 21:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:MassMoca


text:
Talk:Victoria, Hong Kong

More email from the HK government
I emailed the San Francisco office of the HK Economic and Trade office, since they are speak much better English. I was very clear about the terms Victoria City and capital in my query. I have removed identifying information from this response, like the others. If you want to ask for yourself, feel free, the URL remains. Not only did he say "does not have a Victoria City" but he underlined the word "not". Are we done now?

Thank you for your mail. Being a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong is a city with just above 1,100 square kilometers of total area covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories and Islands. Hong Kong's Victoria Harbour is famous for its deep water ports facilitating trade and industry, and also for its picturesque night scenery. Nevertheless, we do not have a "Victoria City" nor does Hong Kong have a "capital", either before or after the 1997 handover. Here are a few websites with information which might be of interest to you: Government Information Center http://www.info.gov.hk/eindex.htm A to Z Index http://www.info.gov.hk/topic_f.htm About Hong Kong http://www.info.gov.hk/ef3.htm We also have some publications which I think would facilitate your research. If you would kindly let me have your postal address, I would be happy to send you the publications. Thank you for your interest in Hong Kong and look forward to hearing from you. Best reards, -xx- Public Relations Officer Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office San Francisco Web site: http://www.hongkong.org

and then, moments later, another email appeared from this persons boss. This is to supplement my colleague -'s response to your enquiry. Hong Kog has never been a country - it's a Bristish crown colony before reverting back to China in 1997. When the British first took over the Hong Kong Island in the early 1840's, a town was built near the waterfront of the Victoria Hoarbor where the present Central District area situate, and the place was known as the city of Victoria. Howver, that name (Victoria City) has long been eclipsed by Central District in popular usage. (You may refer to p.17 of "A Modern History of Hong Kong" by Steve Tsang). While Central District has long been the financial and adminstrative cluster in Hong Kong, this area should not be referred to the "capitol" as Hong Kong has never been a country. I hope that helps your report writing. Thanks. -- Deputy Director (Public Relations) Hong Kong Economic & Trade Office San Francisco Website: http://www.hongkong.org

Now, can we put this ENTIRELY to rest? (added by SchmuckyTheCat at 03:00 and 03:05, Mar 12, 2005)

 * Thanks for telling where exactly did you write to. It makes life easier to follow up.
 * Back to the two e-mails. On one hand, she/he mentioned Hong Kong has no capital. On the other hand the reason why Hong Kong has no capital is because Hong Kong is not and has never been a country. The argument backing the claim was an invalid one.
 * The name "Victoria City" or "the City of Victoria" is eclipsed in popular usage, but in legal term it still exists. Furthermore the limits of the City of Victoria do not overlap with the modern-day popular usage of Central. — Instantnood 14:14, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just knew he wont accept the above. Maybe the next thing we need to do is to email the chief justice.--Huaiwei 14:30, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Territorial extent of the City of Victoria
Victoria City covers Central, Kennedy Town, East Point, Sai Ying Pun, Shek Tong Tsui, Happy Valley, the Mid-levels, the Peak, Wan Chai, not just Central. The boundary stones are all located outside Central. It's erroneous to say that the name Victoria City is eclipsed by Central. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that Central is only one part of Victoria City. The popular name for Victoria City is Central (see synecdoche). This is a separate issue from what the place actually covers. The island of Great Britain is only part of the UK, but it's still popularly used to refer to the entire UK.
 * : "Central Hong Kong is officially named Victoria City, but nobody ever calls it this."
 * : "the city of Victoria, a name that has long since been eclipsed by Central District in popular usage."
 * : "Generally referred to these days as either Central or Chung Wang (Middle Circuit), in official documents the district is still known by its early designation as the city of Victoria."
 * : "The district was originally named Victoria ... But as the 'capital' of the territory, it has been called Central at least since WWII."
 * Spellcast (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 * As posted below, "Central is the hub of the City of Victoria. ". As a matter of fact, Central covers only the area between Sheung Wan and Wan Chai.., to many people not even the Tamar Site or Admiralty Station would consider to be within Central. Yet all these places are well within the limit of the City of Victoria.
 * According to Sched 1 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, e.g., the eastern limit of the City of Victoria runs along Hing Fat Street, which is to the east of the Victoria Park. Therefore Victoria Park is within the city limits. Would anyone consider Victoria Park to be in Central? By the same token, would anyone consider Kennedy Town or the campus of HKU to be in Central? Are they within Victoria City? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, what the place actually covers has nothing to do with its popular name. The bottom line is that the region that Victoria City originally covered is now called Central in popular usage, even though Central is now only one part of it. This is simple to understand and unless you have sources disputing the popular name, there's no reason to remove it. Spellcast (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Central refers only to area between Sheung Wan and Wan Chai, and to some, only between Sheung Wan and Admiralty. The rest of the city is never called Central. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a source disputing the ones above, Victoria being called Central in popular usage stays. Besides, I've clarified that Victoria doesn't only cover Central. Spellcast (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 * "Unless you have a source disputing the ones above" - It's ridiculous to ask for a source that argues against an erroneous source. The sources aren't referring or debating with each other just because they might be cited on Wikipedia. Only Central is being called Central. The rest of the city are never and have never been called Central. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * People unaware of place names may refer to the entire HK Island as Central. Names are often fast and loose with meaning in the informal sense. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

 * The four reliable sources above share the same sentiment. Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not by whether one person thinks they're correct or not. Spellcast (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit protected

 *  added an editprotect template earlier today, to request following edits. I believe that these might be controversial or not supported by consensus, since they were added as part of the series of edits which led to this page being protected.  That template is therefore innappropriate until consensus has been reached. Tim PF (talk)

To make the following edits: These edits were lost in the previous blind reverts by persistent vandalists. 119.236.141.71 (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) To add ", etc " after " Victoria Junior Chamber ", since these aren't the only organisations in the territory with the name Victoria or Victoria City in it.
 * 2) To add "  The name "Victoria" is still used in Victoria Park, Victoria Peak, Victoria Harbour, Victoria Prison, and a number of roads and streets.  " after " eclipsed by Central District in popular usage ", since the City of Victoria covers a much much broader area than Central.
 * 3) To add " known in modern times as " after " Choong Wan ( ", to clarify that "Choong Wan" was the old name.

 * I note that the above were made as part of, by , which appear to include some of the controversial edits. Tim PF (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid these are non-disputed and non-disputable facts. Please kindly refrain from removing others' requests with apparently incorrect allegations. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Central is the hub of the City of Victoria. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 11:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Per the above note from Tim PF. Avic ennasis   @ 12:02, 9 Sivan 5771 / 11 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid all these aren't relevant at all to the edit dispute. The vandalists are simply undoing everything. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"Etc" is not needed at the end because "such as" is already used earlier in the sentence. See WP:MOS. Spellcast (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

 * What about point #1 and #3? 119.236.250.27 (talk) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * #1 is discussed above and #3 seems non-controversial. Spellcast (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For #3, I've simply changed it to Central. Historical names can be explained in the Central article. Spellcast (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 * For #1, that's for clarity. For #3, by changing it to Central the historical touch of the four wans, meaning circuits or rings, is lost. This isn't satisfactory for an encyclopedic article. 119.236.250.27 (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't be a big deal either way, so I've restored it. Spellcast (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Wans and Districts
Does anyone know the source for the list of four wans and nine yeuks/districts set (according to article) in 1857? There's a reference to Jason Wordie in this paragraph but this seems to refer to the boundary stones, at least that's all I can find in Wordie's book. The closest that I can find is the following: Any pointers to the 1857 source are appreciated. --Matthäus Wander (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 1844, three districts: Sheungwan, Chungwan, Hawan (bottom of page 220, source dates to 1895)
 * 1866, nine districts: equals list of article but with different spelling, no wans mentioned (page 907, ordinance No. 7 of 1866)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Victoria, Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602014404/http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_3422/CH_S1-3_Pkg5_07.pdf to http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_3422/CH_S1-3_Pkg5_07.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Victoria, Hong Kong


text:
Sculptor Dwarf Galaxy

The Sculptor Dwarf Galaxy (also known as Sculptor Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy or the Sculptor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy, and formerly as the Sculptor System) is a dwarf spheroidal galaxy that is a satellite of the Milky Way. The galaxy lies within the constellation Sculptor. It was discovered in 1937 by American astronomer Harlow Shapley using the 24-inch Bruce refractor at Boyden Observatory. The galaxy is located about 290,000 light-years away from the Solar System. The Sculptor Dwarf contains only 4 percent of the carbon and other heavy elements in our own galaxy, the Milky Way, making it similar to primitive galaxies seen at the edge of the universe.

Metallicity
The metallicity of Sculptor dwarf appears to be broken up into two distinct groups, one with [Fe/H] = −2.3 and the other with [Fe/H] = −1.5. Similar to many of the other Local Group galaxies, the older metal-poor segment appears more extended than the younger metal-rich segment. Using cosmological numerical simulations, it has been recently argued that Sculptor's two distinct stellar populations would be the tell-tale sign of a past merger between Sculptor and another small dwarf galaxy companion.

The Sculptor Dwarf is home to the most metal-poor star outside of the Milky Way, known as AS0039, with a metallicity of [Fe/H] = −4.11. Unlike other known metal-poor stars, it has a low carbon abundance and an unusual ratio of alpha elements, suggesting it may have been formed in the aftermath of a Population III star hypernova.

Measurements
Using both Hubble Space Telescope and Gaia observations 12 years apart, about 100 stars in the galaxy were mapped accurately, and 3D motions of about 10 of those stars enable trajectories to be mapped as well.

title: Sculptor Dwarf Galaxy


text:
Talk:Balwyn

Conflicting suburb boxes
The suburb boxes of Surrey Hills and Balwyn conflict with eachother. Which one is correct? Somebody in the WWW 08:42, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * They're both correct. Balwyn is to the north of both Canterbury and Surrey Hills. Most of the new suburb boxes don't allow more than one suburb per cell though, which is in my opinion, a major problem with them - this is why. TPK 10:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * What about MelbSuburbBox2? Somebody in the WWW 23:07, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

why i added the tags why i added the tags first i think someone can expand this article with more good information and you needs to source you information as well thanksOo7565 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deepdene now separate suburb
Deepdene is now officially a suburb - it will require a page for itself and obviously changes to any sections of the Balwyn page that refer to it. Mustard Pot (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2023

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover)  The Night Watch     (talk)   14:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

– These are all unnecessary disambiguation (thus going against WP:CONCISE) as they are completely ambiguous. Given the outcome of a recent discussion I would have boldly moved these but was prevented from doing so by the history at the base titles, all of which have been redirects without issue for decades. A7V2 (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Balwyn, Victoria → Balwyn
 * Bundoora, Victoria → Bundoora
 * Prahran, Victoria → Prahran
 * Princes Hill, Victoria → Princes Hill
 * Viewbank, Victoria → Viewbank
 * Yallambie, Victoria → Yallambie
 * Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support most are unique though there is Bundoora, Queensland and Viewbank in Scotland, see List of listed buildings in Coupar Angus, Perth and Kinross though may not be notable. All already redirect here but if not primary there should be DABs at the base names.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm annoyed that I missed Bundoora, Queensland. As you can possibly tell from the edit summaries of this page it was a late (and possibly foolish) addition to the nomination... still, Bundoora has targeted Bundoora, Victoria for nearly 20 years and I think it's by far the primary topic. That said, I will add a hatnote to Bundoora, Queensland. A7V2 (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and considering the above comment.- GA Melbourne (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The hit to recognizability is not worth a bit a conciseness. As they are, they are recognizable as city names in Victoria, even if you haven't heard of the places.  With this change, they become completely unrecognizable to readers not familiar with place names in Victoria, and also somewhat ambiguous as pointed out for some already.  In the US of A we have WP:USPLACE that says not to do this.  Not sure if there's a general consensus down under. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The equivalent convention is WP:NCAUST, which states "the name of a city or town may be used alone if the place is the primary or only topic for that name". Note further that no country apart from the United States has this exception to WP:CONCISE (a policy) and this it's my understanding this is on WP:COMMONNAME grounds, which does not apply to Australia as none of these places would ever be referred to as "xxx, Victoria" unless it was absolutely essential to make the state clear. Also, see WP:CRITERIA: the part about recognisability specifically sates "The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" (my emphasis). Someone might not know the Balwyn is a suburb of Melbourne, or in the Boroondara LGA, etc, etc, but we aren't going to put all of those things in the article title, that is what the article is for. A7V2 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong support—And what is more problematic is the obsessive use of state for suburbs in capital cities: Fitzroy, Victoria; Surry Hills, NSW. Foreigners should be allowed to know the more functional location. Tony (talk)  07:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Balwyn


text:
User talk:64bit

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will normally be reverted quickly. Please see the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Hadal 07:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:64bit