text:
Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

need a sane disambiguation policy
following on from a discussion on thortful's talk page, i agree with xoddam's position with not overdisambiguating every town with (town), (state). , it seems silly to move all articles to (town), (state) automatically, especially with larger town/cities like Wollongong. Wollongong should not be further disambiguated, just as Sydney is not further disambiguated. it irritates me no end that in the us articles that Chicago is actually located at Chicago, Illinois when 99.99% of the time that's what somebody wants to link to when wikilinking Chicago. also non-anglo or aboriginal names are less likely to require disambiguation. for smaller centres and especially anglo names, then, yes disambiguation makes sense. further discussion is on wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sydney.

i propose that if a town, city or suburb is unique within both australia and the world, remains at the unqualified name (e.g. that would include Adelaide, Wollongong, Wagga Wagga). this especially makes sense for non-Anglo names. clarkk 11:22, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Aha! I have allies. There has been a lengthy, and as yet unresolved discusion on getting a policy together (or perhaps maybe sticking with the normal policy) over here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city_names). I agree with you, unique titles should be sung from the mountaintop.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, the usual policy is to not defensively disambiguate, and only disambig once it's required. I don't know why it's different for cities. Shane King 01:09, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

 * I find it easier if I know that every town or suburb is going to exist at "suburb, state" this means you don't have to check if it has been disambiguated before creating a link. Then a redirect can be made from the non-disambiguated name if no disambiguation page exists. I can see that larger cities of international importance (that don't conflict) should probably exist at their non-disambiguated name. Martyman 02:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You won't have to check, unless you're anal (in which case you'll be checking anyway "just in case"). IF we leave at "simple works best" — your City link will either link to the City article or to a diambiguation page that will go to City, State . With less typing. IF someone later finds out it is a disambiguation page, or you do yourself, you can create a piped link.
 * If you think it is at City, State, you will still have to "check", in case somebody has innocuosly created it under City for not knowing that Australia has a special policy. It also means if you want to link to a state you have to laboriously type Cloncurry, Queensland . I'm still at a loss as to how a non-psychically broadcast consensus idea will solve the problem of misdirected wikilinks.--ZayZayEM 00:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What we really need is a consensus as to what cities should be dismabiguated to (1)City, State; (2)City, Australia; or (3)City (Australia). . As well as a last line solution for two cities with the same name in the same state. Once we have this sorted out we can return to the issue of overdisambuation. (Personally I think we wil find everyone dropping there differences to choose City, State ). AS for last line, I'm inclined for Suburb, City, State and City, Area, State (Area being Central Queensland, Sunshine Coast etc. OR shire council)--ZayZayEM 00:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Any agreement/new vote set up occuring soon.--ZayZayEM 03:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Australian musicians
Thanks to Ambi, Revenge, and others who have helped with the Triple J Hottest 100 yearly articles. I have gone through and collected all the redlinked artists - some of them are not Australian, but many of them are. Some major ones are missing, like The Fauves and Rebecca's Empire, as well as many smaller ones that no-one has heard of. But if anyone wants to work on any, check them here -> Australian wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do/Musicians -- Chuq 08:54, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this - it really highlights some obvious names that are missing. I'll have to get to work on it. Ambi 09:49, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making up that list. There are a few names there I'll make a mental note to write about some time in the future. Shane King 10:10, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Fixed a few misnamed/mispunctuated ones. —Stormie 00:08, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out guys. I've edited the page a little (including moving it to the AWNB To-do list) -- Chuq 02:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ACOTW Policy
I've proposed a vote here. What do you think? Alphax (talk) 13:47, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Image Copyright
Okay, I'm moving into the exciting Wikipedia World of images. The site that I want to use images from has the following copyright message:

"Material on this site is protected by copyright. The copyright owner is the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. You may not make alterations or additions to the material on this site, sell it, or misappropriate it. The Commission permits and encourages reproduction provided it is accurate and acknowledged. "

So does that mean I can use the images in Wikipedia articles, without asking them, as long as I attribute it to them? - Borofkin 03:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not a lawyer, but my interpretation would be only under fair use provisions. The restriction on being able to sell it means the license isn't GFDL compatible. Shane King 03:56, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but you you need to include this template reason and that text as the reason - on the image page. Wikimedia wouldn't be able to use it for anything, but it gives people an idea about what you're talking about nixie

 * Hmm... Okay, a slight clarification, HREOC say anyone can use the images, as long as they include the caption: "Photographs obtained from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission's National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention : reproduced from website http://www.humanrights.gov.au/". Which I've done, on the image page on Wikimedia Commons. However when I reference the image in my article, it displays the image, but the link points to the image page on Wikipedia, which doesn't exist. Have a look, anyway: Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre

 * You do eventually get to this page which describes the copyright. I think in the image's caption, yuo should state courtesy of HREOC. Also your reason is not "for any purpose", the picture may not be altered, sold or misappropriated, it may only be used if free, accurate and acknowledged. I am changing both of these.--ZayZayEM 09:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

sigh. I've had this issue with Jimbo already. We apparently can't use Australian government images, however what I did discover is that when we upload the images to the U.S. site after receiving permission to be able to use the image on Wikipedia I think the copyright changes to fair use. In those cases I have attributed the image with both the Australian copyright and the fairuse copyright, under seperate headings. Check out the Cyclone Tracy image. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The Commission permits and encourages reproduction provided it is accurate and acknowledged. This statements mean we can use the iage without request, as long as the copyright tag remains, and we don't edit the picture (and we don't say the picture is something it isn't). The source must be acknowledged every time it is used. I think if taht is followed we don't recquire permission.--ZayZayEM 03:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Errrm. I don't really understand. Do I have to remove the image? The copyrighted template is different on Wikimedia Commons to Wikipedia. Should I upload the article to Wikipedia instead? - Borofkin 04:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Robbie Buck on VFD!
Triple J listeners, come and help save him! -- Chuq 23:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Parliament diagrams
What do people think of the diagrams to the right, so far as parliament diagrams go?

The bold O represents the centre of the house. (ie. seat needed for a majority by one of the major parties)

Might be difficult to do for larger houses - 150 O's in a row may not fit very well! (Could use the letter I instead!)

More at Talk:Tasmanian House of Assembly -- Chuq 02:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the U.S. senate and house both have diagrams, if you want to model off them Xtra 03:24, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * the u.s. house got rid of their's. to see it go to an old version. Xtra 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the pendulum style would be better if possible. Having them in a line is a) odd, and b) only usable for the Tasmanian, Northern Territory and ACT Legislative Assemblies (although it would be quite useful in the case of the ACT). Ambi 03:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * as i said, see the set up on the american ones Xtra 03:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I've done some House of Reps style diagrams with influence from the American style, and the standard pendulum style. As good as can be done with ASCII tables. (The Bluey-green ones are Nationals, btw) The arrow is supposed to point to the middle of the house - hopefully it does in all fonts/browsers. Alternate versions of this table are at Talk:Australian House of Representatives A utility that could take input figures and generate house images on the fly would be fantastic. But, as we don't have one for maps yet, I doubt we will get one for parliament pendulum diagrams for a while :-/ -- Chuq 04:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I prefer the second table at Talk:Australian House of Representatives, the one without the O's and the borders. I think a colour key might be neccessary though, as it's not obvious to non-Australians which party is what colour. Also prehaps a note stating that each square represents one seat? Though that's fairly clear in itself. T.PK 06:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've replaced the table at right with a smaller version of the one you are talking about, as it is my favourite too. I'll include a colour key, etc. with any versions of these tables which make it to articles!  Strangely, the colours look different on my home PC - the colour I described before (National) is light-blue and the Liberal squares look more purpley-blue. -- Chuq 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that doing it this way is an inappropriate use of HTML tables, and an image would be a better solution. Shane King 06:49, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * At the moment, tables are easily editable without additional software, visible to probably slightly more web browsers that images are, fast to load, and versatile. A pendulum/curved layout would look better - if anyone wants to draw up a template, go for it. -- Chuq 07:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd do it if I wasn't the worst artist in the world. Sorry to critique but not be able to help. :) Shane King 07:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

 * i like diagram 2 best. is there any chance of having the nats in green (that is their recognised colour). also html is the form used on other like articles. Xtra 07:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Will do. Is there an offical list of colours associated with parties?  I've probably got some of the other shades wrong too. -- Chuq 07:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The point is taken, but it does seem odd that green wouldn't represent the Greens. Ambi 08:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Not in a historical sense--nixie 08:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Colours adjusted, see tables. Dark green for Nationals, "No Dams" sticker coloured yellow-green for Greens! -- Chuq 08:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Look what I found - http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2004/items/200407/s1162235.htm . Also, the Senate figures (I think from the relevant wikipedia article) don't differentiate libs/nats in the senate, so they are all blue in my diagram -- Chuq 09:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pendulum diagrams are entirely possible, but one needs to do a lot of calculations to make sure the diagram is representative. The work that needs to be done to get a truly representative pendulum diagram somewhat outweighs the work in actually drawing the diagrams, unfortunately. Dysprosia 11:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Australian Wikireader
Comments from the Foundation mailing list:

"I think my next thoughts will be oriented toward what French call "fracture numérique", ie, the great gap currently widening between those who have access to the net versus those who do not (or have a very limited net access). We might think about what we are *currently* doing : we are certainly improving the amount and quality of information of those who already have access to information. But we are not bringing information to those who do not really have access to information."

On that note, have we ever considered creating an Australian Wikireader? A PDF document that could be downloaded, printed out, and distributed for free? - Borofkin 22:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's a good idea, but I think we may have plenty of work left to do with the articles online before we can create a decent Wikireader, in my opinion. Something for the horizon. T.PK 23:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * There's definitely plenty more work to do, but I suspect there will always be plenty more to do. We would start small, say with an Australian media or Australian military history wikireader. I suppose it would need someone with enough interest in a certain topic. - Borofkin 23:18, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that would actually be harder to do, as it would require more depth in a particular area. But nevertheless, we're not really ready for this yet. We've improved a lot over the last few months, but it'll be a few months yet before many of our articles - particularly in the areas of society and history, are up to scratch. Ambi 10:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well what I've found with my work on the Shakespeare WikiReader, is that it is kinda like a longer term COTW. If we got together the pages that we wanted in the WikiReader now, it would give us a systematic approach to improving the aussie articles. Just because we start it now doesnt mean we have to finish it within the next two weeks. Instead (as Jimbo has pointed out), it would be like a little bit of wikipedia 1.0 that got here early. It might also show us holes in our coverage of Australia, that we had no idea even existed. The bellman 11:44, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

 * I think we're going to have to specialise if we're to have any hope of making this workable. Our coverage of most of the humanities, for example, is wretched, as is our coverage of geography. We're not in a position, IMHO, to even start on such a project yet. On the other hand, something more specific, such as current Australian politics (where we have a decent set of articles already), I don't think would be out of the question. Ambi 12:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictionary of Australian biography
Thanks to Dysprosia, we now have a list on here of all the people in this reference, who all probably need articles here, at /Complete to-do/Australian Dictionary of Political Biography. We can't use the material itself, as it's still copyrighted in the US, and it may also not be the best source, but they still need articles. I'll go through and wikify them soon. Ambi 08:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the mundys
To whom this may concern I am writting here today on the twenty-fith of november 2004 i recently found out some interesting family history my name is Mark Cleaver i always knew i was of aboriginal decent and i knew wich aboriginal ancestor we came from on my mothers side her maiden name is mundy and untill today i found a bizzare twist in my story the aboriginal decendant of ours is the one and only Truganini i always knew the name and what happened to her but never knew her story was famous and that she was a living legend i knowwhat im saying is hard to believe but we have a photograph of her in our family album and more of her with our aunty who lives in tasmania both my parents come from tasmania but it was on my mothers side comes our historical back ground if you would like to con tact me my email address is markcares at  hotmail  dot  com please get in contact with me i would like to know more as im sure you would.

sincerely yours, Mark Cleaver

 * Sounds great. Do you want to get involved in wikipedia? Do you have scanned in versions of the pictures? The bellman 11:18, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Unstubbing Regional info
So I'm trying to expand some of the information on my local region Central Queensland and in particular the Capricorn Coast. The problem is all the coastal townships are basically interconnected history-wise and its very hard writing an article about Yeppoon that just deals with just Yeppoon. Should surrounding smaller townships be absorbed into either the Yeppoon article, or the Capricorn Coast article (INITIALLY, with individual articles being the eventual goal). Any suggestions on how to deal with this. Thanks.--ZayZayEM 02:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There's obviously going to be some duplication of material, but I think it works to have them seperate, as long as each article comes at the material from a different angle. Central Queensland and Capricorn Coast could cover the development of the respective areas, Yeppoon could cover the development of the town as a whole, and Smaller township could cover just the details relevant to that little piece. Ambi 02:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiReader
Anybody interested in the idea of creating an aussie WikiReader? The bellman 05:37, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Erm, read up three topics on this page. ;) Ambi 05:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Shit, sorry, havent been keeping up to date with the notice board. The bellman 11:33, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

Another ACOTW tie
The title pretty much sums it up. A three-way tie.

Voting lines will close around 8pm tomorrow AEST (if noone else monitors it more likely 10pm, after the new Coupling series on ABC).

The choices are:
 * Aboriginal art
 * Azaria Chamberlain
 * Murray River

Please go to the WP:ACOTW page to place your votes. --ZayZayEM 11:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Winner was Australian Aboriginal art. We will have to decide if Art of Indigenous Australians or Indigenous Australian art are better titles (see Talk: Australian Aborigine). And it was a damn rerun too, luckily they are all good. --ZayZayEM 14:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Again on Disambiguation
Okay. Can we have a clear vote on this. Noone else seemed to be setting a new one up.

Option One
''All Australian town/city/suburb articles Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. Capital Cities will be excepted from this rule and prefferentially made City ''
 * 1) Ambi 06:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Chuq 05:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Given these four options, this is the one I prefer, but I would also prefer capitals to be at City if non-ambiguous.
 * 3) Martyman 06:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) A redirect or disambiguation page should be placed at Suburb.
 * 4) *This is NOT merely dealing with suburbs. Just thought I'd be clear on that.--ZayZayEM 05:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Dysprosia 06:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) Normally I support disambiguation-until-necessary, but since there are already a lot of conflicts, this creates for us a pseudo-namespace, which will makes things easier for us.
 * 6) Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC) (haven't been here in a while, but putting my $0.02 in. No accounting for inflation.) - Ta bu shi da yu 06:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Tookr 09:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) older ≠ wiser 14:48, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC) (assuming one doesn't have to be from down under to vote on this) -- I have some reservations about using preemptively disambiguated names for large world-class cities, but as a general rule, it is much easier all around if there is a consistent naming schema.
 * 9) Camerong 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 10) T.PK 03:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 11) a bit late, but may as well "vote" anyway Xtra 12:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Option Two
''All Australian town/city/suburb articles will be titled Town, where no question of ambiguity arises. If there is a question of ambiguity, articles will be titled Town, State ''
 * 1) ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Shane King 05:40, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) clarkk 09:34, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Geoff/Gsl 21:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) The bellman 03:21, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Option Three
As option one; but suburb articles will be titled Suburb, City

Option Four
All town and city articles will be preferrentially made City, but Suburb articles will be Suburb, State

Option Five
All town and city articles will be preferrentially made City, but Suburb articles will be Suburb, City

Option Six
All Australian town/city/suburb articles Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is.

Option Seven
''All Australian town/city/suburb articles Town, State no matter what their status of ambiguity is. All Cities larger than Darwin, the smallest state capital, will be excepted from this rule and prefferentially made City ''

Option Eight
(Compromise between Option One and Two)

''Untill such a time as ambiguity is found, all Australian cities (As legally defined in Australia (If memory serves - a settlement with more than 50 000 people)) would be at city. All suburbs and towns would be at Town, state initials or Suburb, city/town. All council areas, shires, municipalities, etc would be at foo council/shire/municipality .''

Examples:
 * cities - Perth, Orange, NSW, Alice Springs
 * towns - Yackandandah, VIC
 * suburbs - Hurstville, Sydney, Sutherland, Sydney
 * council areas - Hurstville Municipality, Sutherland Shire
 * Perth, WA or Perth, Tas ? Also, VIC isn't an acronym so it wouldn't be all capitals. -- Chuq 10:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) The bellman 03:14, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Comments and Notes

 * At present can we ignore the possibility of dual cities/towns being present in the same State. The method of secondary disambiguation can be dealt with after this is agreed upon.--ZayZayEM 05:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I find it a bit strange that the present consensus regarding suburbs (specifically having them at Suburb, State) isn't an option. Ambi 05:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Isn't that option one? Shane King 06:04, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * That is option one, have added option five to cater for this within option two's parameters.--ZayZayEM 06:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe I've missed something somewhere, but what would be wrong with Suburb, City, Australia ? It provides a good idea that you're looking at a local area of a larger city, and differentiates between other cities with the same name. So you have Sydney at Sydney, Australia and Manly at Manly, Sydney, Australia . Suburbs or localities of regional centres can be dealt with similarly (ie. Suburb, Town, State .) Is that too long-winded? Would there be problems with border areas? Tookr 09:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that is it is starting to get a bit too long to type in. Quite a few people already think suburb, state is too long. Martyman 10:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This will likely receive stiff opposition, mainly because its Sydney, New South Wales. If you would like to add an option eight and nine, go ahead.--ZayZayEM 02:41, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Re: option ONE. Would it be Wagga, NSW or Wagga, New South Wales. I prefer the abriviation system, because its so much shorter, however i still think its a bit silly to be trying to avoid ambiguity with aboriganal town names. Youre as likely to find another Wagga or Canberra or didjabringabeeralong as you are to find an honest politician. The bellman 02:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
 * Actual articles should never use abbreviations. Abbreviations should redirect to simplest, full name. I'll concede I've lost out to option one to a bunch of "normally I don't support unnecessary disambiguation folks", but using abbreviations would be evil.The tribe has spoken, but I'm gonna wait till the weekend before I bring up the suggestion of who is going to be responsible for moving all the current unambigious articles, ensuring redirects and monitoring New Articles.--ZayZayEM 07:55, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely willing to do this, if it's okay with you. I'd be lax if I voted for the option and then didn't put in the time to see it through. Ambi 08:10, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Re Option Eight: No, no, no. We're an international encyclopedia - this would be disastrous for anyone from overseas. There's a reason the American articles use California instead of the abbreviation CA - as much as many Americans would prefer that. Ambi 10:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * hmmm... you might have a point there. The bellman 09:45, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

Complete todo layout
Would anyone object if I modified the layout of the complete todo list akin to the Votes for deletion pages. Each category would be a set further done the page (which some already are). With major categories being People (Actors, Musicians, Politicians, Footballers etc.), Places (by state, || or cities, towns, suburbs, parks, waterways monuments), Organisations (govt, companies, charities, misc), Events (annual events, crime, history). and a Misc, Image Request, Review Request. --ZayZayEM 05:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How about doing a mockup in your user space first? I'm not sure it's necessary. Ambi 05:55, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The thing is, because of how the system works, that would rather much more difficult to set up. I'd have to recreate a lot of templates already set up. I just think it would amke it easier editing, and the list does need a bit of further organisation.--ZayZayEM 06:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What about just doing an example template for one category? Ambi 06:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Ambi on this one. I think that ZZM's idea is probably a good one. Let's see what he comes up with, I think it could be useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:25, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I was against it! Just not sure - I'd like to see a partial example first. Ambi 06:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is more work than I thought it would be. Currently working on a People example in User:ZayZayEM/evil_usage, it might take a while. I think I am going to have to work the whole thing in my workspace first anyway.--ZayZayEM 02:38, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Good thing I have done a rough one first. I think I'm insted just going for a rewrite of the list witha lot of organisation. Some categories need to be changed/added/tweaked a bit. Will do a rough in my space first (User:ZayZayEM/Sandbox) and then present--ZayZayEM 14:26, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Before you get too far - I've made a recent (unfinished) attempt to do exactly the same thing here, by forming a list along the same lines as the UK one. I'm just trying to find where I put it - I'd added heaps of new material. I hope you won't mind merging mine in - I put a fair bit of work into digging up new stuff that needed articles, particularly in the areas of sport, the media and geography (and I was starting on actors and actresses, too). :) Ambi 07:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
George Hincapie

George Anthony Hincapie (born June 29, 1973) is an American former racing cyclist, who competed professionally between 1994 and 2012. Hincapie was a key domestique of Lance Armstrong. Hincapie was also a domestique for Alberto Contador in 2007 and for Cadel Evans in 2011, when both men won the Tour de France. He was the owner and general manager of UCI Professional Continental team until it folded at the end of the 2020 season.

On October 10, 2012, Hincapie released a statement on his website acknowledging the use of performance-enhancing drugs and confirming that he had been approached by US federal investigators and USADA about his experiences with doping. Later that day a statement was released confirming his acceptance of a six-month ban from September 1, 2012, ending on March 1, 2013, along with a stripping of all race results between May 31, 2004, and July 31, 2006.

Hincapie started a record 17 Tours, however, after his doping admission he was retroactively disqualified from the 2004, 2005 and 2006 Tours. The only Tour he started but did not finish was his first. He completed his 16th and final Tour in 2012, which tied Joop Zoetemelk's record of completed Tours. However, following the outcome of the Armstrong investigation, the record reverted to Zoetemelk. He also rode at five consecutive Olympic Games between 1992 and 2008.

Early life
Hincapie was born in Queens, New York, United States. His father Ricardo, a native of Colombia, introduced him to cycling, and his first race training was in New York City's Central Park. He graduated from Farmingdale High School in Long Island in 1991.

Cycling career
Hincapie has several important wins of his own, starting with Gent–Wevelgem in 2001 and Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne in 2005. Also in 2005, Hincapie took two stage wins at the Critérium du Dauphiné and 2nd place at Paris–Roubaix. In 2005 he had his first stage win in the Tour de France where, on July 17, he finished seven seconds ahead of climber Óscar Pereiro to win Stage 15 from Lézat-sur-Lèze to Pla d'Adet. In January 2014, Pereiro acknowledged in a radio show that during the final climb, Hincapie turned his head and said 50,000, which Pereiro assumed was in Euros, although Hincapie was referring to U.S. dollars. Pereiro accepted the offer and sold the stage to Hincapie. The deal was closed some kilometers before arriving to the finish line. More recent victories include two stages at the Tour of California (2006), the overall and a stage at the Tour of Missouri (2007), and another stage win at the Critérium du Dauphiné in 2008. He is a three-time US Professional Road Race champion (1998, 2006, 2009). Throughout his career Hincapie has targeted the cobbled classics of April, specifically the week that begins with the Tour of Flanders, continues mid-week with Gent–Wevelgem, and ends with Paris–Roubaix. He achieved his highest position on the podium with his 2001 victory in Gent–Wevelgem. His 2nd-place finish in the 2005 Paris-Roubaix remains the highest placing in that race by an American.

His many top 10 placings in these races include 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th (twice), 7th, and 10th in various Tour of Flanders; 3rd, 4th (three times), and 5th in Gent–Wevelgem, in addition to his victory; and 2nd, 4th (twice), 6th (twice), 8th, and 9th in Paris–Roubaix. While using Three Days of De Panne as a warm-up ride during the previous week, he has placed well in that race also, winning the overall in 2004 and placing third overall in 2002.

In 2005, Hincapie showed a talent for short individual time trials (ITTs), winning the prologue at the 2005 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré, placing second three times and third once in prologues in 2006 (including at the Tour de France), and placing second in the short ITT at Three Days of De Panne. In the 2006 Paris–Roubaix, bad luck struck Hincapie in the cobbled sector of Mons-en-Pévèle, when the steerer tube of his Trek bicycle snapped, leaving him dangling with no handlebars and crashing heavily. He was near the lead group but had to abandon the race. He later won the ITT at the Eneco Tour of Benelux in 2006 and placed fourth in two longer ITTs that year. He finished third in the prologue at the 2007 Tour de France and second in the prologue at the Volta a Catalunya in 2008.

Hincapie rode for in the 2008 and 2009 seasons, departing Discovery Channel Pro Cycling Team shortly before it disbanded. He is easily distinguished from the pack by his large size (1.91 m). His contract with the team expired after the 2009 season, and though there was talk of him joining Armstrong's new, Hincapie signed with for the 2010 season.

In 2012 he established the, initially with support from BMC. He also set a record by completing his 17th Tour of Flanders, surpassing Briek Schotte. On June 11, Hincapie announced that he would retire at the end of the season, after 19 years in the professional peloton. On June 30, Hincapie started a record 17th Tour de France. He was allowed to lead the race onto the Champs-Élysées as this was his final Tour de France. In August, Hincapie announced that he had raced in his last event, the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. In his own words: “It's been a long career for me, a good career and I'm proud of it. I'm sad to leave, but at the same time, I'm excited to spend more time with my family and start a new life.” He also said that he didn't plan to terminate all his relations with cycling. Following his retirement, Hincapie opened a bed and breakfast in Travelers Rest, South Carolina with his brother.

In March, 2017, Hincapie turned to mountain biking and competed in the Masters category at the eight-day Absa Cape Epic stage race in South Africa over 641 km. The race is held in a two-person team format and Hincapie and partner Cadel Evans – reunited after Hincapie helped Evans to win the 2011 Tour de France – won the category.

Doping
On October 10, 2012, Hincapie announced on his website that he had used banned substances at times in his career. The statement reads in part:

""Because of my love for the sport, the contributions I feel I have made to it, and the amount the sport of cycling has given to me over the years, it is extremely difficult today to acknowledge that during a part of my career I used banned substances. Early in my professional career, it became clear to me that, given the widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs by cyclists at the top of the profession, it was not possible to compete at the highest level without them. I deeply regret that choice and sincerely apologize to my family, teammates and fans.""

The statement came as the U.S. Anti-Doping agency announced plans to release documents related to doping accusations against Lance Armstrong, a former teammate of Hincapie.

Major results

 * 1992
 * 1st MaillotUSA.PNG Team time trial, National Road Championships

 * 1994
 * 2nd Overall Tour de Luxembourg
 * 1st Jersey green.svg Points classification
 * 1st Stages 1 & 4
 * 4th Classic Haribo

 * 1995
 * 1st Acht van Chaam
 * 3rd Reading Classic
 * 10th Philadelphia International Championship

 * 1997
 * 5th Reading Classic

 * 1998
 * 1st MaillotUSA.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
 * 1st Philadelphia International Championship
 * 2nd Reading Classic
 * 5th Lancaster Classic

 * 1999
 * 1st Reading Classic
 * 1st Stage 6 PruTour
 * 1st Jersey green.svg Points classification, Tour de Luxembourg
 * 3rd Lancaster Classic
 * 4th Gent–Wevelgem
 * 4th Paris–Roubaix
 * 5th HEW Cyclassics
 * 9th Milan–San Remo
 * 9th Philadelphia International Championship

 * 2000
 * 3rd Reading Classic
 * 4th Trofeo Luis Puig
 * 5th Philadelphia International Championship
 * 6th Paris–Roubaix
 * 7th Lancaster Classic
 * 8th Road race, Olympic Games

 * 2001
 * 1st Gent–Wevelgem
 * 1st San Francisco Grand Prix
 * 2nd Lancaster Classic
 * 3rd Overall Tour de Picardie
 * 3rd Philadelphia International Championship
 * 4th Paris–Roubaix
 * 9th Milan–San Remo

 * 2002
 * 1st Stage 1 (TTT) Volta Ciclista a Catalunya
 * 2nd Classic Haribo
 * 3rd Gent–Wevelgem
 * 3rd Overall Volta ao Algarve
 * 4th Tour of Flanders
 * 5th HEW Cyclassics
 * 5th Philadelphia International Championship
 * 6th Paris–Roubaix
 * 9th Lancaster Classic

 * 2003
 * 1st Stage 4 (TTT) Tour de France
 * 7th Overall Tour of Belgium

 * 2004
 * 1st Jersey white.svg Overall Three Days of De Panne
 * 4th Gent–Wevelgem
 * 5th Overall Paris–Nice
 * 8th Paris–Roubaix
 * 10th Tour of Flanders

 * 2004
 * 1st Stage 4 (TTT) Tour de France
 * 3rd San Francisco Grand Prix
 * 5th Grand Prix Eddy Merckx

 * 2005
 * 1st Kuurne–Brussels–Kuurne
 * 1st GP Ouest–France
 * Tour de France
 * 1st Stages 4 & 15
 * Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 1st Stages 1 & 7
 * 2nd Paris–Roubaix
 * 6th Brabantse Pijl
 * 7th Tour of Flanders

 * 2006
 * 3rd Tour of Flanders
 * 4th Overall Tour of California
 * 1st Stages 2 & 5
 * 5th Gent–Wevelgem
 * 8th Overall Tirreno–Adriatico
 * Tour de France
 * Held Jersey yellow.svg after Stages 1–2

 * 2006
 * 1st MaillotUSA.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
 * 2nd Overall Eneco Tour
 * 1st Stage 4 (ITT)
 * 9th Clásica de San Sebastián

 * 2007
 * 1st Jersey yellow.svg Overall Tour of Missouri
 * 1st Stage 2
 * 2nd Road race, National Road Championships

 * 2008
 * 1st Stage 2 Critérium du Dauphiné Libéré
 * 1st Stage 7 Tour of California
 * 4th Overall Tour of Missouri
 * 5th Tour of Flanders
 * 9th Paris–Roubaix
 * 9th Overall Three Days of De Panne

 * 2009
 * 1st MaillotUSA.PNG Road race, National Road Championships
 * 8th E3 Prijs Vlaanderen

 * 2010
 * 4th Gent–Wevelgem
 * 6th Tour of Flanders

 * 2011
 * 2nd Road race, National Road Championships
 * 5th Overall USA Pro Cycling Challenge
 * 1st Stage 2
 * 6th Tour of Flanders

 * 2017
 * 1st Jersey blue Cape Epic.svg Overall Masters Cape Epic (with Cadel Evans)

Personal
He is married to former runway model and Tour de France podium girl Melanie Simonneau, and they have three children, daughter Julia Paris (born on November 3, 2004), son Enzo (born on June 20, 2008), and son Lucca (born on May 16, 2014). Hincapie resides in Greenville, South Carolina.

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

title: George Hincapie


text:
Hitler Bad, Vandals Good

Hitler Bad, Vandals Good is the seventh studio album by the southern California punk rock band The Vandals, released in 1998 by Nitro Records.

Composition
Much of the album is characterized by the pop-punk music and humorous lyrics for which the band is known, and it became their most popular and commercially successful album to date. While the band has utilized humor as a basis for much of their lyrical content throughout their career, the humor on their previous album The Quickening had been rooted heavily in sarcasm and dealt with themes of nihilism, anarchism and apathy. By comparison, the humor in Hitler Bad, Vandals Good is more lighthearted, dealing with subjects such as girlfriends, fast food and hairstyles.

The album contains two cover songs. "Come Out Fighting" was originally performed by fellow southern California punk rock band Pennywise and is dedicated to the memory of Pennywise bassist Jason Matthew Thirsk, who had committed suicide the previous year. "So Long, Farwell" is a Rodgers and Hammerstein song from the musical The Sound of Music, which has here been re-interpreted using electric guitar, bass and drums as the closing song on the album.

Release
Hitler Bad, Vandals Good was released in June 1998. In November 1999, the band toured South America with the Offspring. An independent music video was later filmed for the song "My Girlfriend's Dead." Two different videos were released: One features the band members and was filmed as part of the Kung Fu Films movie That Darn Punk in 2000, while the other is a fan-created animated video that was included on one of Kung Fu Records' DVD releases.

Personnel

 * Dave Quackenbush - vocals
 * Warren Fitzgerald - guitar, keyboards, backing vocals
 * Joe Escalante - bass, backing vocals
 * Josh Freese - drums, cymbals, backing vocals
 * Gabe McNair - trombone on "F'd Up Girl"
 * Jason Freese - saxophone on "F'd Up Girl"
 * Stan Freese - tuba on "I Know, Huh?"
 * Adrian Young - bongos on "If the Gov't Could Read My Mind"
 * Dexter Holland - co-wrote "Too Much Drama"

Technical

 * John Ewing - engineer
 * Steve Mixdorf - engineer
 * Elvis - assistant engineer
 * Craig Neep - engineer
 * Warren Fitgerald - engineer
 * Warren Fitzgerald - engineer
 * Greg Koller - engineer
 * John Tyree - engineer
 * Jerry Finn - engineer
 * Warren Fitzgerald - producer, artwork
 * Mackie Osborne - design
 * Lisa Johnson - band photo

title: Hitler Bad, Vandals Good


text:
Robert (footballer, born 1981)

Robert de Pinho de Souza (born 27 February 1981), simply known as Robert, is a Brazilian former footballer who played for as a striker.

Early career
Born in Salvador, Robert began his professional career with Botafogo de Ribeirão Preto of Brazil, where he played in 2001. He made a move to São Caetano in 2002. On 14 March 2003, Robert signed for Spartak Moscow on loan until the end of the 2003 season. After less than a season with Spartak, however, he returned to the Americas, signing with Club Atlas. He did exceptionally well in his first season with Atlas, scoring 16 goals in 21 games during the 2004 Clausura. He repeated his performance in the 2004 Apertura, leading them to the semifinals of the liguilla, where they were eliminated by UNAM Pumas.

PSV Eindhoven
Robert moved from Atlas to PSV Eindhoven for £2 million, in January 2005. He made 32 league appearances, scoring 7 goals. During the UEFA Champions League quarter-final match against Olympique Lyonnais, he kept his nerves in check to deliver his decisive spot-kick which sent his team into a semi-final showdown with eventual losing finalist AC Milan. Although he hardly had the time to impress in the Champions League games, he played an excellent match against the Italian giants in the return leg at Philips Stadion, with PSV winning 3–1 and being ousted on away goals, and he himself came close to scoring when he cracked a long range shot which just missed the Milan left post by a matter of inches.

Real Betis
Robert was loaned by PSV to Real Betis for $1 1/2$ years for €1 million fee, arriving during the 2006 January transfer window. His signing was pivotal in the efforts of Betis to avoid relegation, scoring 7 La Liga goals, including two against Villarreal in a 2–1 win at El Madrigal and a winning penalty against bitter rivals Sevilla FC in a 2–1 win at the Manuel Ruiz de Lopera. Robert also scored one UEFA Cup goal against AZ Alkmaar. Due to the injury of fellow Brazilian and teammate Ricardo Oliveira, Robert's importance to Betis gradually grew, as he finished the club's top goalscorer for the season. His second season, however, was poorer (still managed 9 league goals in 29 appearances) and he eventually left Real Betis in July 2007, despite Betis excised the option to buy Robert from PSV for €3.25 million on 4 April (effective on 1 July). Moreover, Robert refused to sign a contract, making the transfer collapsed. He joined Al-Ittihad as a free agent. The Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that despite the collapse of the transfer, Betis still had to pay €1,562,500 as compensation to PSV.

CF Monterrey
On 22 August 2007, Robert signed for Saudi Arabian team Al-Ittihad. On 4 December 2007 Mexican media announced the transfer of Robert to the Mexican football club CF Monterrey, where he was paired up in attack with Chilean goalscorer Humberto "Chupete" Suazo.

Tecos UAG
In Tecos, he had mild success and ended the tournament with only 5 goals. Tecos were eliminated in the quarterfinals and Robert de Pinho was sent to Club America.

Palmeiras
In July 2009, Robert joined Palmeiras and in the Série A he scored 5 goals in 12 matches coming as a substitute in all of them. In 2009, he played a good role as a substitute in the league becoming an important player in the squad. In 2010 Robert remained with Palmeiras and became the key striker in the team. On 21 February 2010, he scored two headed goals against Paulista rival São Paulo and Palmeiras won the match by 2–0; it was a great appearance for Robert after he had been criticised in the beginning of the Campeonato Paulista, where he scored already 5 goals. On 14 March 2010, Robert completed perfect hat-trick against Santos and Palmeiras won the match by 4–3; this game was marked by the different type of commemoration after goals. By the end of this game, Robert came to be known as "Blade do Palestra" due to his resemblance to actor Wesley Snipes, who played the character Blade in a trilogy of films.

Cruzeiro
On 3 June 2010, Cruzeiro Belo Horizonte signed the striker of Palmeiras property, but he arrived on a six-month-loan from CF Monterrey.

Puebla
It was announced on 8 June 2011 that de Pinho was signed to Puebla. This was made public during the "2011 Super Summer Draft" held in Cancun.

Jeju United
On 16 January 2011, Robert joined South Korean K-League side Jeju United.

title: Robert (footballer, born 1981)


text: User talk:81.154.223.194

title: User talk:81.154.223.194


text:
Talk:V.

Chapter 9. Historical Context
The 1922 'seige' plot is set against the Bondelswarts affair, correct? I think it should be added....but I'm also just checking to make sure I'm not assuming too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.205.168 (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Kilroy
Is Pynchon's origin for the Kilroy face in fact "novel"? Has anyone actually researched that? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'm open to rewording. I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else, including the various outside pages linked from the Kilroy was here page. In general it seems to conflict with the explanations others have provided. --Elijah 23:28, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Hereros and Jews
After "Pynchon clearly sees the German treatment of the Herero at that time as prefiguring the Holocaust of the Jews in the Nazi era" someone recently inserted, without citation or explanation "(a correspondence he would come to reject in Gravity's Rainbow)". I don't remember that being the case at all, but I read these books over 25 years ago. If someone can explain and/or cite, great. Otherwise I will revert. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The edit had no summary, and came from an IP with no other edits: not usually a good sign. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * While there is an explicit connection made between the repression of the Hereros and the Holocaust in V. (p. 245), the historical depictions in Gravity's Rainbow resist such a facile correlation. For example, tribal suicide is mooted as one of the factors contributing to the Herero genocide in the later novel (pp. 317-18). 60.228.45.83 08:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The suicide rate was rather high among those who survived the Nazi camps. In any event, your remark on a talk page, pointing me to a page number without even saying what edition you are using doesn't answer my request in the article for a citation, which I see you have removed.-- Jmabel | Talk 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * You asked for an explanation and citation on this page, so they were provided on this page. Pagination for Gravity's Rainbow is the same in all editions except for the 1974 Bantam paperback. Here is an excerpt from the relevant passage: "It was a simple choice for the Hereros, between two kinds of death: tribal death or Christian death. Tribal death made sense. Christian death made none at all." (p. 318) Nothing to do with suicide rates. See also the letter Pynchon wrote to Thomas F. Hirsch describing the research he undertook on the Hereros whilst writing Gravity's Rainbow (the letter is reprinted in David Seed's book The Fictional Labyrinths of Thomas Pynchon, London, MacMillan, 1988, pp. 240-3): "[...] When I wrote V. I was thinking of the 1904 campaign as a sort of dress rehearsal for what later happened to the Jews in the 30s and 40s. Which is hardly profound; it must occur to anybody who gets into it even as superficially as I did. But since reading McLuhan especially, and stuff here and there on comparative religion, I feel now the thing goes much deeper. [...] I feel that the number done on the Herero head by the Germans is the same number done on the American Indian head by our own colonists and what is now being done on the Buddhist head in Vietnam by the Christian minority in Saigon and their advisors: the imposition of a culture valuing analysis and differentiation on a culture that valued unity and integration." (p. 241) Abaca 07:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Now that is an excellent citation. And should be quoted in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Don't worry. In a quest to remove the 'H' word from Wikipedia, Ernham has decided to remove the Herero HOLOCAUST (sorry Ernham I had to say it) reference because he doesn't like it. It makes the later point about how the Pynchon changed his mind a bit silly without the original reference, but hey, we mustn't offend Ernham's sensibilities! Now, it may seem to some that he hasn't read the book and shouldn't be involved in things where he knows nothing, but then he's never been one to let a good fact get in the way of one of his holiness Ernhams's opinion. :) Greenman 19:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Publication of V.
My edition of V., New York: Harper, 1990, has the original copyright date as 1961. The 1999 edition says that V. was first published in 1961 by J.B. Lippincott Company. Why do we list the publication date as 1963? What has happened in later Harper printings of V. [Harper absorbed Lippincott] is that ONLY the first copyright date was picked-up, either 1963 was overlooked or there was a mistaken belief that only the first date needed to be listed on the copyright page. MKohut (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The short story 'Under the Rose' was published in 1961. The novel was published in 1963. Abaca 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed, with the copyright page of the original Lippincott hardcover edition, that both dates, 1961 and 1963 are listed.

Clean up?
Well, the way the chapter outlines are formatted seem odd to me, but maybe others do not agree with the placing of a clean up message. --Godtvisken 19:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The chapter titles, and how they are laid out, is odd, but the oddness is Pynchon's. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are only the so called Stencil chapters included in the plot outline? That's only half the book. Tudwell 03:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Only because when I put a couple of hours into this article two years ago, that was what I felt like working on, and no one has come back and done the rest. Feel free. - Jmabel | Talk 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kilroy, redux
I have restored the Kilroy which another user removed as cruft. I don't see anything crufty about it, or at least no cruftier than anything else about the book. Pynchon, an engineer by background, proposed a novel explanation for the origin of Kilroy, accompanied by what I believe is the only illustration in the book. The passage about Kilroy is certainly memorable (while I didn't originally put it here myself, I read the book a good 30 years ago and that passage stuck in my mind). He specifically is dealing with British usage of Kilroy (the soldiers write on the wall, among other things, "Wot, no Yanks?"). - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

 * And again 5 months later, restoring anonymous unexplained deletion. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well putting a caption on it to show it's relevance might prevent further occurances. As it stands it does look rather like vandalism.  DamienG 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's immediately next to the passage about it in the article text: "As always, Kilroy was here first, and Pynchon proposes a novel origin for the face: that Kilroy was originally part of a schematic for a band-pass filter." But if you really think it needs a caption to say what is in the adjacent text, so be it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Colonialism
I removed the following from the plot summary and bring it here for discussion:

 * At the same time, this part of the novel is a haunting indictment of Western colonialism and racism; later, in Gravity's Rainbow, Pynchon would emphasize this latter aspect, acknowledging the facile identification made between the Herero genocide and the Nazi Holocaust in his earlier novel as "superficial". In a letter to Thomas F. Hirsch, reprinted in David Seed's book The Fictional Labyrinths of Thomas Pynchon, London, MacMillan, 1988, pp. 240-3), Pynchon wrote, "…When I wrote V. I was thinking of the 1904 campaign as a sort of dress rehearsal for what later happened to the Jews in the 30s and 40s. Which is hardly profound; it must occur to anybody who gets into it even as superficially as I did. But since reading McLuhan especially, and stuff here and there on comparative religion, I feel now the thing goes much deeper. […] I feel that the number done on the Herero head by the Germans is the same number done on the American Indian head by our own colonists and what is now being done on the Buddhist head in Vietnam by the Christian minority in Saigon and their advisors: the imposition of a culture valuing analysis and differentiation on a culture that valued unity and integration."

Given that these are Pynchon's own words [citation needed], it is certainly notable and of value to the article. However, simply plopping it in the middle of the edit summary will not do. This needs to be in another section in which the import or philosophy, for lack of a better word, is discussed. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 04:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

In the article currently published in Wikipedia, the entry for Chapter Sixteen does not make sense. What 'face' is being referred to? Context is needed. Cloud 2 Clarity (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 7 April 2015

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

V. → V. (novel) – more precise 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, better still V. (Thomas Pynchon novel), differentiation from other things on V (disambiguation). In ictu oculi (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Move to V. (Thomas Pynchon novel).  CookieMonster755   (talk)   00:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment V. (Thomas Pynchon novel) works which I think helps with differentiation from the V space series. Was wondering, epecially before seeing the other suggestion, whether V. (World War I novel) or V. (WWI novel) might work.  The novel spans but exceeds that time period.  GregKaye 07:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to V. (Thomas Pynchon novel); the proposed and current title should redirect to the disambiguaiton page for "V" V (disambiguation). "V." grammatically refers to all abbreviations that are just "V" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE, WP:SMALLDETAILS, etc. Red Slash 14:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Common English grammar would disagree with you. "V." is any abbreviation that is reduced to the letter V ; therefore, it is not this novel. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Surely that is "support" per WP:CONCISE, WP:SMALLDETAILS, unless "." is now not a small detail? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the anon is saying, but the "." is indeed a small detail, and therefore suffices to dab. Choor monster (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From grammar schooling (ie. when we first learn English), you learn that when you abbreviate something, you place a "." a the end, thereby any abbreviation rendered as "V" should grammatically speaking, have a "." after it, making it "V.". Thus all things that are abbreviated as "V" should properly be "V.", so this disambiguation fails to identify this topic, as all abbreviations "V" are also "V.". So this is not disambiguatory. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Totally irrelevant to WP. See MOS:ABBR.  As it is, we are one big descriptivist project, not prescriptivist.  I would say you, like most people, learned grammar from people who did not really understand grammar, which in the last thirty years has become a rather scientific enterprise, and your assertions are flat-out nonsense.  The 100% correct abbreviation for Vanadium is "V", not "V.".  The 100% correct abbreviation for Volt is "V", not "V.".  These abbreviations are set by international standards committees, not by someone stuck in third grade.  And modern scientific grammars do take note of this.
 * The question regarding dab is not decided by someone's ideas about grammar (even were they correct) but by MOS:DAB. Is the text string "V." actually used for multiple items with none of them standing out, or is it primarily used for one item?  The answer here is "one item".  You can wag your finger and tut-tut until you're blue in the face regarding people using "V" without a period as an abbreviation, but actual usage is what we consider.
 * Personally, I first learned English at home and on the streets, not at grammar school. Choor monster (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, "V." is a valid alternate name for all things abbreviated as "V", of which several topics are listed on the dab page. Therefore it is indistinct, so is insufficient for disambiguation purposes. We don't just treat the current article title as the only name. Clearly topics can have many different ways of spelling them and many alternate names (which is why redirects exist). If we are not prescriptivist then why are we not disambiguating? We are clearly being prescriptivist if we think that Wikipedia's current article titles are the only names that topics can have. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being completely pointless. It wouldn't matter even if "V." were a "valid alternate name" for various things.  We don't dab based on possible usages, we dab based on actual usages.  And since in actual usage the Pynchon novel is called capital-V-dot far more than anything else that someone might think to look up under capital-V-dot, it gets the standalone article title, with a hatnote.
 * As for your bizarro beliefs about "English grammar" that you learned in grade school and which are somehow supposed to trump MOS:DAB, please re-educate yourself. I recommend the Oxford English Grammar, a modern classic for 20 years or so now. Choor monster (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We dab for all uses with topics on Wikipedia this includes alternate names for topics with articles using different titles. It'd be stupid if we didn't since we'd never find anything.
 * We don't use British English on Wikipedia, we use English. Just because British English has become lax in the last quarter century in the use of the fullstop does not mean that English has. Indeed, look at usage from before The War (since you're so hung up on British English), where abbreviations to letters required a fullstop and a space after it. Wikipedia is not restricted to using currently-in-use-British-English as the only proper terms to disambiguate by. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Periods have also disappeared from American English, including uniquely US topics here on WP which are expected to be written in American English. The OEG is a modern scientific reference guide to English grammar, not British English grammar. Your comments about laxity are rather offensive actually, the words of someone hellbent on ramming his grade school prescriptions on everyone else.  I'll repeat since you seem to be seriously stuck on WP:IDHT: the correct international abbreviation for Volt is "V", for Vanadium is "V".  No periods.  Meanwhile, "V." has not been identified as a name or an alternate name for anything beyond the novel and the poem.  As it says in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we are concerned about what readers will actually use in searching for a topic, and as it says in the display box at the top of this section, we are bound to discuss things per WP's dab policies.  Not what an incompetent error-filled grammarian is concerned that some 90-year-old regressing to his childhood is going to enter as a search term. Choor monster (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose per Red Slash. If a disambiguator is chosen, however, "(novel)" or "(Pynchon novel)" is sufficient. No need for the full "(Thomas Pynchon novel)". Dohn joe (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's nothing really to disambiguate here.  In particular, there is essentially nothing that gets called "V." that somebody wants to look up except this novel.  Volt, Vanadium, etc, get abbreviated without a period.  If a dab is introduced, (novel) suffices and thus it should be used, per WP:NATDAB. Choor monster (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see V (disambiguation), has anyone actually looked at Amazon: V. is the Tony Harrison book, V (with no dot) is the Thomas Pynchon book..... In ictu oculi (talk) 05:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not offered a contradiction to my statement, you just say see the dab page as if I'm gullible or something. There's nothing to support your view except what you just put there yourself.  Meanwhile, V., capital V-dot, is the Thomas Pynchon novel, something I have known since I became a complete Pynchon-head 30-35 years ago.  Amazon lists the title as capital-V-dot, if you'd actually looked, and if you "looked inside" you'd see the V-dot in a very large font on the title page.  Why the cover art gets the title wrong on this particular edition, I have no idea, I would certainly never buy it.  It's wrong.  The Tony Harrison poem is identified by Amazon as "v.", small-v-dot, a common abbreviation for "versus", one of the themes of the poem.  Most sources (and WP) seem to give it as "V", capital-V-no-dot. Choor monster (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The Selected Poems of Harrison in its TOC, uses "v.", small-v-dot, see and "look inside". Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Oppose, per Choor monster and Red Slash. A book cover is just art. The "title proper" is given on either the title page or on its verso. The verso usually gives the title in fine print as part of a copyright or cataloging notice. The eigenvector (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Struck as blocked sock of c-banned user In ictu oculi (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Time to close. It has been 7 days, and the consensus is clearly in favor of keeping things as they are.  The only thing in competition for the name V-dot is the Harrison poem, and this is clearly of much lower interest than the Pynchon novel.  The poem is rated Low-Importance on its main project, the novel as High-Importance on its main project.  Page views that I've just checked show V. has been viewed 20100 times in the last 90 days versus V_(poem) has been viewed 1563 times in the last 90 days (these are live links, so your mileage may vary slightly).
 * As a reminder, "consensus" does not mean unanimity, but weight of applicable WP-based arguments.
 * There are two loose ends. The V. hatnote probably should refer first to the Harrison small-v-dot poem, then to V (disambiguation).  It also seems the poem article should be moved to v. (poem), as that is the title by which it is currently known as.  Note that the link is piped to V. (poem) with a capital-V-dot.  It is a limitation of the software that WP articles cannot begin with a lowercase letter.  It is only a display-trick that is used to render the first letter as lowercase, like eBay which is really EBay.  So it is impossible to create a v. article as a "natural" dab for the poem.  As you can see, I've typed it in with wikilinks here, and indeed it's a blue-link, but if you click on it, it will take to you the novel's page. Choor monster (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support a move to any of the proposed disambiguators, I don't mind which. "V." is a common shorthand for any abbreviation beginning with V. This book is certainly not the primary topic for that, and it should redirect to V (disambiguation). — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please restrict yourself to making arguments based on WP policy. Disambiguation in titles is meant to help navigate through existing WP articles and how readers are most likely going to try and find them.  We do not have articles on "V-dot, that fascinating abbreviation for "velocity", or "V-dot, that incorrect abbreviation for Vanadium", and so on, and we never will.  And people do not look for information regarding "Volt" based on the erroneous abbreviation "V-dot", and we're don't dab based on imaginary people.  There are exactly two things known as "V-dot" that are article-worthy, the novel and the poem, and that's it. Choor monster (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * How does someone distinguish V. by Pynchon from V. by Harrison? or any other V.? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * (For visual clarity, I am writing V-dot instead of V.) The novel gets V-dot undabbed and the poem gets V (poem) (as it is now) or V-dot (poem), either way, an explicit dab.  As per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  That's the point of the numbers I listed above.  What "other V-dot" searches do we expect to be made out there for existing WP articles? Choor monster (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 * - I do see what you are saying, but go to the disambiguation page and do a ctrl-f search for "v." You'll see that Choor monster is correct - there are only two articles with a subject sometimes known as "v." - none of the others show "v." as an abbreviation. Dohn joe (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 * Side issue comment: I went ahead and resolved the two loose ends I mentioned above. This page's hatnote has been expanded to include a direct mention to the only other v-dot article on Wikipedia, and the Harrison poem is now at V. (poem).  You can always type v. (poem) to create a link that shows as "v." and links to "V. (poem)". Choor monster (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support either V. (novel) or V. (Thomas Pynchon novel) as precise enough, unlike V.. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of people here who are suggesting V. (Thomas Pynchon novel) disturbs me. Policy is quite clear on how to dab, and in particular WP:NATDAB expects the shortest sufficient parenthetical dab to be added.  Please stick to discussing per actual WP policy.  But none of this is applicable in the first place, since this only applies when there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  Pynchon's novel is the primary topic for "V.", and there has been exactly one competitor identified, objectively much much less trafficked than the novel, so yes V. is precise enough. Choor monster (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:SMALLDETAILS is talking about just this sort of thing, especially which such a well-known novel. The title also better fits WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, being concise and no more precise than it needs to be.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Not close to a PrimaryTopic.  The period doesn't do it, it is too small.  I thought there was a consensus that a trailing period doesn't disambiguate.  Trailing commas too.  Too easily confused with punctuation.  Urls with trailing periods are frequently truncated of their trailing periods, and so Wikipedia redirects to titles with trailing periods the title without the trailing period.  This is not possible here.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you cite this from somewhere? Anywhere?  It sounds totally made up, a vague memory of something that never achieved consensus beyond a one-off.  The guideline Naming conventions (technical restrictions) warns against using periods in a way that looks like "this directory" or "parent directory" in a Linux file system, nothing more.  So forget getting to slashdot by punctuation.  Further down, regarding URLs, the guideline mentions that raw "?" and "+" can confuse URLs, yet says they are completely acceptable in article titles.
 * So yes, a trailing period is perfectly fine in an article title. If you're worried about an URL, use the same remedy the guideline recommends for ? and +.  And this is true whether or not there's a question of disambiguation going on.  Just a red herring.
 * Why isn't the period helpful here? If you had to dab between No Matter How Much You Promise to Cook or Pay the Rent You Blew It Cauze Bill Bailey Ain't Never Coming Home Again and No Matter How Much You Promise to Cook or Pay the Rent You Blew It Cause Bill Bailey Ain't Never Coming Home Again I would agree that sometimes small differences are way too small.  But not "V" v. "V.".  It's 50% of the title.  Most people looking for the novel article know to include the period, those that don't get pointed to the dab page.  Most people looking for something named V-dot are looking for the novel.  That's precisely what makes it a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Choor monster (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_161
 * Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_46
 * Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles/Archive_48
 * Yes, trailing punctuation is OK, but if foo and foo. do not lead to the same article then there is a problem. It is a problem here.
 * "V." will be misquoted as "V" when used mid-sentence, and "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V." will be changed to "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V". The title V. is not conducive to readable sentences. Terminal punctuation is not OK as WP:SMALLDETAILS.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As for quoting "V." mid-sentence and end-sentence, that will always be a problem when writing about the novel, anywhere, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia article titles, whatever they happen to be. I don't see your point in mentioning it.
 * Stripping terminal periods and making a redirect is one approach to the URL-copy problem. So is what is done with + and ?, eg, .  So is ignoring it, as with Airplane!.  I would see what technical says about this, the foo redirects to foo. was a cheap and easy fix for the 100 or so articles listed in the Jimbo page.  Meanwhile, "V." really is the primary topic for this novel, just like Airplane! is the primary topic for the movie.  As you know discussed last September.  Change the guideline itself, change the policy regarding terminal punctuation and dabbing.  Trying to implement non-policy one article at a time as if it were policy is not cricket.  Choor monster (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * V. is not a PrimaryTopic, or even a COMMONNAME, as judged by the references. Looking at the four references, the introductions are:
 * 1 Thomas Pynchon's V.
 * 2 As a subtitle to "Books: A Myth of Alligators", it is given as "V. (492 pp.) Thomas Pynchon—Lippincott"
 * 3 "'V.' by Thomas Pynchon"
 * 4 "The Two V.s of Thomas Pynchon"

 * Note the third in particular, which uses quotes around the title. Because the title is ambiguous.
 * V is ambiguous with V.
 * The title is unreasonably short. It always requires disambiguation, the short form is always awkward.
 * V (disambiguation) contains so many other entries that could be mis-recognised with an undisambiguated V.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * We decide what is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC or a WP:COMMONNAME by the standards mentioned in those articles. I showed the numbers above for V..
 * Your attempt at "proof" using your own homegrown standard is bizarre, ridiculous, and flatout incompetent. You offer, for example, your own opinion about why the NYT used 'V.' in the title of their book review without bothering to actually read the link.  If you had, you would have noticed the obvious.  The NYT style is to quote-mark titles.  The first paragraph is rife with quote-marked titles.  And as a further odd little style point, they use single quotes in their article titles, but double quotes in the main body.  Their prerogative.  See  for more examples.
 * Please name one entry from V (disambiguation) that gets searched for using "V.", other than the novel and the poem. You pretty much can't.  That's what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is about.  And what, for crying out loud, is so much more awkward about typing "V." to get to the novel instead of typing "V. (novel)"?
 * If unusually short titles always require disambiguation, cite policy or guidelines to that effect. Otherwise you are not actually contributing.  in fact, there is no such policy, no such guideline, and WP has done quite well with the main article at Pi instead of Pi (mathematical constant).  For that matter, the individual letters of the alphabet are all listed at the letter, not at a dabbed version.  The main article letter-V article is at V, not V (letter). Choor monster (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No one can search for V. because the . is ignored.
 * I search for V. by typing "V." in the search box. It works.  The way WP:PRIMARYTOPIC says it should work.  And you want to break this for, well, I haven't yet figured what your reasons are, they flat out don't make sense.  Go ahead, don't duck the question, answer it.  What other topics on WP do people expect to find by typing in "V." in the search box?  You have stated it is not a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and haven't bothered to identify a competitor of the "V." name, and when asked to do so, play WP:IDHT. Choor monster (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you normally berate every opinion you don't like, or is it just for this article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you normally respond to clearcut refutations of your utter nonsense with personal attacks? For example, your #3 link above was not engaged in "extra" marking because the title was too short, as you claimed.  I explained what it was doing, and the only proper response on your point is to strike out that argument.  Instead, you pretend, based on ten seconds of reading Wikipedia (or misreading, actually) that it's not WP:COMMONNAME?  That's not an argument in any shape or form. Choor monster (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think Choor monster you've fallen into one of those situations that arise sometimes on WP (and I've been there too), where you get incredibly emotionally invested in what on the face of it is probably a quite trivial issue. Can any of us honestly say it matters that much whether this article is at V. or V. (novel) or whatever? I voted in support of the move, but I won't be terribly upset if it doesn't happen. Sometimes a deep breath is in order, accept that you've stated your opinion, continue to engage in fruitful conversation where that's productive, but not try to beat down every single other person who has an opposite opinion. Not that I'm shutting you up, you're welcome to talk if you want to talk, it's just a vague notion I have. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself, your remote diagnosis is patronizing and a borderline PA. I'm pointing out major illogical and off-policy and anti-policy comments which some supporters keep making.  The number-one bit of nonsense is that we ought to dab because of theoretical, potential confusion, however far-fetched.  That's not policy.  Policy is we do not dab if we have an identifiable WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.  We instead use the bare undabbed title as a help for the users who have a proven track record of looking for that particular topic far more than anything else that gets looked for by the same name.  If you disagree with that claim, identify specific competitors for the "V." name on WP.  User:In ictu oculi identified one, the Harrison poem.  It was so good and logical a response that I acted positively on it: I researched the poem, including finding a copy on microfilm of the original publication, found out that in fact it belongs under the "V." name and not "V" as it had been, and then looked up article usage numbers and provided links above for that purpose and found "V." the novel beats "V." (actually "v.") the poem by an order of magnitude.  So I moved V (poem) to V. (poem) and fixed the half-dozen or so links and so on.  Identify a third plausible candidate "V.", something that we have every reason to expect a significant number of users will type in "V." in order to get to, and I'll probably respond in the same way.
 * If you want to identify someone as "emotionally invested", try looking for someone who considers his "vague notion" a valid argument, and sticks to it no matter what. Choor monster (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you have a poor reading of both WP:PRIMARYTOPIC & WP:COMMONNAME. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

From WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
 * There is no single criterion for defining a primary topic. However, there are two major aspects that are commonly discussed in connection with primary topics:
 * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
 * A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

Exactly two topics, the novel and poem, have been identified as terms sought for under "V.". The numbers I identified on 90-day WP usage statistics showed the novel easily beat the poem. Based on volume of Thomas Pynchon criticism versus volume of Tony Harrison criticism, sales, newspaper coverage and so on, along with the state of the two articles V. and V. (poem), it seems the novel also meets the second criterion. In both cases, no third topic has been identified as something searched for on WP under "V.". Requests are repeatedly met with WP:IDHT. Regarding WP:COMMONNAME:
 * Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title.

So. What other name is the novel V. known by? Seriously. The only other name used for it happens to be "V", no period. If it were more commonly referred to without the period–and that variant name was free for the taking on WP–it would be something to talk about. But it is not more commonly referred to without the period. I speak with more than 10 seconds experience on the subject: the book is mostly only referred to by Pynchonites, both scholarly and amateur, and they almost overwhelmingly include the period, even when it messes up sentence punctuation. Your best attempt was the feeble reference to Wikipedia not referring to the novel as V., and even that you mangled. A previous editor made a 10-second look at Amazon and insulted some of us saying he found out the "true" title is "V". But this is all pointless, because "COMMONNAME" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. It was brought up by mistake, and it is being dragged around as if it's some kind of trump card. Whatever the COMMONNAME happens to be, the article gets titled either "COMMONNAME" (if no dab is necessary) or "COMMONNAME (dab term)" (if a dab is necessary). If you really believed "V" and not "V." was the appropriate COMMONNAME, you'd be supporting a move to "V (novel)". And while I'm here, let me quote WP:SMALLDETAILS:
 * Titles of distinct articles may differ only in small details. Many such differences involve capitalization, punctuation, accentuation, or pluralization: MAVEN and Maven; Airplane and Airplane!; Sea-Monkeys and SeaMonkey; The World Is Yours and The Wörld Is Yours. While each name in such a pair may already be precise and apt, a reader who enters one term might in fact be looking for the other, so appropriate hatnotes with links to the other article(s) and disambiguation pages are strongly advised.

Which is what we're doing already. Nothing is broken, nothing needs to be fixed. In the list above, none of the odd-ball variants are dabbed. V. is a small detail difference from V of exactly the sort mentioned in the above guidelines, and suffices to dab. Policy is absolutely clear. Choor monster (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * V is ambiguous with V. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SMALLDETAILS trumps WP:IDHT every time. Meanwhile, you might want to compare Ö with O, Å with A, Ç with C. Choor monster (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * tone it down, please. If you're now countering arguments against your position with links to Disruptive editing, things have gone too far. You've stated your opinion, it's down on the record above, and I respect that, but other people have different opinions. Just because they disagree with you doesn't make them disruptive. The reasoning behind those supporting the move is clear - "V." is simply a short-hand for any word beginning with V, or indeed the letter itself. Unlike "Airplane!", the majority of people who say or write "V." will likely not be referring to the novel. You may not agree with that position, but it is a valid position to hold nonetheless, just as yours is. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That argument is quite clear, and totally irrelevant. The issue is what do people type in the search box, not what most instances of "V." out in the real world happen to be.  I agree that "V." is used as an abbreviation for a middle name far more often than the novel is referred to.  But WP readers don't type in "V." to find out information about all or some or even one of the many notable people in the world with a middle initial "V.", so we don't consider that.  The only instance of someone's initial used to refer to that someone that is notable enough to be considered in competition for Wikipedia article space seems to be W., and Mansfield Smith-Cumming, notably known as "C", no period.  Come up with a "V." like those, and you'd have a WP-relevant point, as opposed to a WP-irrelevant fact.  See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC excerpt above.
 * I've asked repeatedly for an actual third example of something that is actually searched for under "V." here on Wikipedia, something that would indeed be relevant to those claiming the novel is not the PRIMARYTOPIC. Repeated responses that consist of nothing but vague something or other and point-blank ignorance of existing policy and guidelines should be treated as disruptive editing. Choor monster (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Choor monster, I have read everything you have written, although it becomes increasingly repetitive. Nearly everything you say is undermined by my observation that "V is ambiguous with V."  The claim to PrimaryTopic especially.  Quoting V. creates difficult text.  The references don't use just V.  Links to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V. will get confused with links to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V. depending on browser or program used, and the standard terminal period url problem can't be fixed because this is not the PrimaryTopic for V.  You say other things that could be disputed, but I find this one thing to be sufficient reason for the move.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no excuse for getting simple matters of fact this badly wrong. The three references from the article that do refer to the title explicitly all contain "V."  I pointed out how bogus your claim was before, and here you are, just brazenly repeating the same falsehood.  (Not that it matters, COMMONNAME is based on all the RS out there, not just the pitiful three that are in this article.  See, for example, A Companion to V., which has hundreds of [over a hundred] entries in its bibliography, and frankly, is a great read to boot.)  The fact that quoting the title creates difficult text is completely irrelevant, because that issue is not mentioned in PRIMARYTOPIC, COMMONNAME, SMALLDETAILS, which is what we are limited to making our decisions on.  Those are actual WP policy and guidelines, not this issue which you think is fascinating.
 * More subtly, you are engaged in the same fallacy as Amakuru, making decisions based on reading things outside a narrowly defined Wikipedia context. He claimed that we're supposed to be concerned with all possible things called "V.", when no, we're explicitly not supposed to, just those that have Wikipedia articles as an aid to reader navigation. We are not concerned with dabbing the entire corpus of World information.  Here, you think that the period that does double duty as an abbreviation ender and a sentence ender, being ambiguous—maybe it's just a sentence ender?—counts as "ambiguity" for Wikipedia navigation.  It does not.  Ambiguity is when two or more text-strings compete for the same name in likely search strings by our readers.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And SMALLDETAILS states point-blank a single punctuation mark dabs.  Otherwise, a sentence like 'John shouted "Airplane!"' would be grounds for nixing Airplane!.  It isn't.
 * As an example of the deliberate WP-narrow focus, I recently created the article Roger Huston. I ran into some issues at first, the article had been previously created and deleted several years ago and there were warnings.  I figured out that that had been some other Roger Huston, a failed candidate for minor political office.  You know what?  I did not dab the article I created!  It's Roger Huston, not Roger Huston (race caller), because we restrict dabbing to actual WP article navigation.  Doubtless there are going to be people looking for the other guy, and who knows, there might be hundreds of Roger Hustons out there.  I have no idea, and don't need to have any idea.  Same here.  To claim PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to the novel, you have to show there is some third article here on Wikipedia that is likely searched for—thousands of times per month!—with the string "V."  Yet you, like Amakuru, refuse to identify it.
 * As for browser/URL issues, that's absolutely not for us to decide. See WP:FAST for a similar phenomenon, and similar advice.  In particular, there's more than one potential fix (convert terminal periods to raw HTML, append an explicit underscore, etc.) or it may be deemed less important than reader navigation convenience.  Take it up at WP:PUMP.  As a little experiment, I found in Gmail that links to "V." and "V._" worked fine.  In contrast, the WP provided URL for "Airplane!" failed: Gmail refused to include the ! in the URL.  The WP provided URL for Who Knows? succeeded because the URL encoded the question mark.  It fails badly if you don't use encoding.  I repeat, these sort of details are absolutely not for us to decide here.  And since it's outside policy and guidelines for discussions regarding page naming, it's just noise. Choor monster (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They contain V., but not simply V. The article's title should contain V., but not be simply V.--SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "They" here. Pronouns are often ambiguous.  Does this mean we should move They to They (pronoun)?  No.  Should we get rid of Them!?  No.  Should Etc. be changed to be the same as Etc?  No.  Choor monster (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "They" were the "The three references" of your first substantive point of your preceding post. Can we just agree that we are not going to convince each other?  I am pretty sure I understand your points.  Is there anything I have written that you would like me to clarify?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. What does your point have to do with anything?  "The Letter V Song" contains "V", but is not simply "V", therefore, we should make sure the WP article on the letter "V" contains V, but not be simply "V"?  No.  Over in the Emily Dickinson article, there are scads of references with titles like "Emily Dickinson Face to Face", "The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson", "Feminist Critics Read Emily Dickinson", "Thirst and Starvation in Emily Dickinson's Poetry" and so on, therefore the article needs to be renamed to not be "simply" Emily Dickinson?  No.
 * Looking at more article views, Latest 90 for V_(disambiguation) is 6118, for the novel almost triple 17857, and for the poem is 1650=1449+201 old name and new name combined. So even those who claim that "V." stands for scads of things that are begin with the letter "V" (though they have repeatedly refused to identify a third WP topic), even if every last reader of V (disambiguation) in the last 90 days got there in two steps by typing V. first instead of V first, they would still amount to an underwhelming minority of WP readers.  The novel is definitely the PRIMARYTOPIC for all things "V." on WP.  (For comparison with the letter V itself the count is 49863.  I'll speculate, not so wildly, that none of them tried searching for just the letter by first "abbreviating" it.) Choor monster (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What would it take for V. to reach Good Article Status?
And, for that matter, Gravity's Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49 as well?

It's strange that as widely respected and obsessively beloved as Pynchon is that none of his major works are at Good Article status. ANDROMITUS (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals)
Please share your thoughts at Village pump (proposals). Cheers! BD2412 T 16:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now in Village pump (proposals)/Archive 190. — BarrelProof (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:V.


text:
File:Shasta-ca-orange-soda.jpg

Part of an ad for Shasta Orange soda

The text on the can reads "Shasta California Brand Orange Soda It Hasta Be Shasta"

This advertisement is painted on the side of a building in the Portrero Hill area of San Francisco and partially obscured by a newer billboard. Next to the can is a "MiraCan" logo, below which is text that appears to read "T.M AMERICAN CAN CO."

The portion of the advertisement that is not visible has the slogan It hasta be Shasta repeated in larger text. The boy pictured has a rifle and a spacesuit, presumably to appeal to all cowboy and space exploration fantasies.

title: File:Shasta-ca-orange-soda.jpg


text: User talk:68.59.103.56

title: User talk:68.59.103.56


text:
Wikipedia talk:Deletion unlisting

Proposed process
Yes, we should all be more disciplined about nominating articles and voting on articles based on facts and the established criteria in the various deletion policy pages. This approach seems like overkill, though - a severe case of instruction creep. By the time we follow this process, the 5 days of VfD may well have run its course. This proposal also suffers from some of the weaknesses of the Managed Deletion proposal - limiting the decision to admins is only a marginal guarantee that the nominations will be more compliant with policy but will run significantly counter to the cultural values of our community. Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but the problem doesn't seem bad enough to justify this change. Rossami (talk) 02:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, there ought to be some ability to control spurious or repeated VfDs, and it needs to be fair. if the users/editors vote, then the only fair control I can think of is one along the lines "a VfD submission should show why its a valid request, and if it doesnt then it shouldnt have to be argued over".  Some VfDs should have a way to be "speedy deleted" in some manner. FT2 02:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

 * My first objection to this proposal is it gives more work and power to administrators (sysops). I don't think that's helpful or necessary. The whole reason that VfD exists is to put the power to delete in the hands of the whole community. The reason that delisting is currently in the power of any user (including anons) and that the five day period is not required for their actions is that these are easily reverted, again by any user.

 * Essentially, this proposal takes us further from the spirit of a Wiki. It's not to be done lightly. Andrewa 00:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No more power for admins. They are as often as not the offenders! I think you just have to live with unpopular pages getting listed by people like Snowspinner (an admin, I believe). I think he deserves opprobrium for ignoring an overwhelming consensus and I would support any policy that limited or banned relisting pages that have already passed VfD.

 * Agree with most of this. But I don't see how you reconcile it to giving admins a special vote in the process. That's a complete coup d'etat on existing policy and strategy IMO (and may be just what is needed, but...). Andrewa 15:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can't reconcile it that way. I'm totally opposed to this policy suggestion.Dr Zen 00:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Have a look at my proposed wording change on the deletion policy page though. I think quite simply allowing listings to be removed if no reason at all is given is at least a step forward. I'm not convinced that given that the policy already requires a reason we couldn't do that already, but making it explicit is a good thing, I think. Note that this would not encourage removing listings with inadequate reasons; it would simply cut the number of pages tagged but not listed, or listed without the courtesy of even a flimsy reason. Dr Zen 00:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I support your idea. I'm not convinced that making it explicit is a good thing. Wikis are controlled anarchy. Andrewa 15:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Andrew, I think making it explicit is a good thing because there are plenty of people here who don't want this to work as a wiki.Dr Zen 00:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you could explain this a little more. I guess it's implied that you think it's both desirable and possible for Wikipedia to become less wikilike. How? Andrewa 03:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good, but...
I like this proposal. The problem is deletion is a damn icky issue and will probably fail to gather consensus if voted on. Managed Deletion failed because everyone was moaning about how the top sekrit sysop cabal could delete articles freely. Now the same conspiracy theory is being spun at Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion. If this is put to a vote, it won't be long before the same happens. I mean, Preliminary Deletion doesn't even explicitly give admins special voting rights. If Managed Deletion was subject to this sort of thing, I don't think this won't be either. That said, I would still support this proposal, but we do need to bear in mind there's a growing number of people who think anything that gives more power to admins is automatically evil and try to find some cabalish reason for it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Deletion unlisting


text:
User talk:Dwbird2

List of literary movements
You've contributed in the past to this list. If you're at all interested, I believe the page needs considerable expansion, and I've made a list of suggestions on its talk page. I'd appreciate your input. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that an annotated list is far more useful than anything too discursive. I've tried to streamline it a bit.  Chick Bowen 20:03, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Pilot fish, oft, and often, redux.
Regarding your comment over on the anonymous IP's talk page (which I'm guessing was you, hence it coming here):

And Wikipedia is too full of writers who think that "encyclopedic tone" implies "must pound prose into monochrome, lest someone, somewhere think that Wikipedia was written by people, rather than generated by robots from the Ministry of Garden Varieties".

"Oft" is not "archaic", and neither is the form "many a [singular]" as opposed to "many [plural]" (which you saw fit to change, too). It is neither unacceptable nor a required form; I see no compelling reason to either correct it, or correct to it. I object to a certain breed of Wikipedian that thinks that not reading a certain word in his Superman comics makes it "archaic", for almost exactly the same reason that I object to those that go around Wikipedia "correcting" British spelling to the American kind.

With all that said, I'm sorry about the bad language. That was uncalled for, so I offer an unreserved apology (you could put that down to not sleeping properly for several days, but whatever). Love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 09:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I will reply to this here, since that's what your user page says to do. First, thanks for the apology.  I owe you one too, since the edit summary I left in the first place was obviously liverish, whiny, and calculated to indicate my superiority.  Sorry.

 * At any rate, I agree that academic prose tends to be pallid and that Wikipedia need not require of its articles the driest of concision. Editors who change British to American spellings or vice versa are just wasting time, since they erroneously believe that one spelling or the other is incorrect, when in fact color and colour are both perfectly acceptable variants.  As a North American I tend to use the former, and I imagine that you as a Brit tend to the latter.

 * My problem with oft is that oft and often are not "perfectly acceptable variants" of one another, because oft is (if not archaic) at least old-fashioned. The reader is obliged to stop and wonder why it has been chosen, only to conclude that no distinction is being made.  I too dislike that breed of Wikipedian that mistakes the English Wikipedia for the Simple English Wikipedia and declares war on "hard words," and I will continue to flatter myself that I do not belong to it.  I prefer Joyce to Hemingway, Ganivet to Galdós, and David Foster Wallace to John Updike.  (I have also never read a comic book.)  But expository prose must take clarity and ease as its highest (though not only) values, and sometimes when I'm reading an article the spirit moves me to clarify or ease its prose.  This is subjective, but what isn't?

 * Happy editing. Dave1898 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well said on all counts, really, and I can't argue with you on this. And you know what's the punchline of it all? "Oft" and friends weren't even "word choices" any more than my use of British spelling; it's entirely habit, not rhetorical value, that leads me to use them. Yet, I will defer to your judgment on this; as a man of academia you probably have a much better idea of what is obsolete and what is not. I will try much harder in the future not to let that sort of thing slip into my edits.
 * Thanks for coming to the table and being civil. Love, Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 17:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Invite
Jccort (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dwbird2