text:
Template talk:Prowrestling-stub

Defense
You may be wondering, "Why the heck is it necessary to have a pro wrestling stub template? Well, here's why I think it is.

 * There are a lot of pro wrestling articles.
 * I'm a big pro wrestling fan, so I've been looking over the Wiki's pro wrestling articles. Turns out there are quite a few of them, and more are being added all the time. That leads to a lot of stubs.

 * The existing stub templates aren't really adequate.
 * There's no real good way to categorize pro wrestling stubs without a separate template. Where would you put them? Sports stubs? Pro wrestling isn't really "sports". Television stubs? Not all wrestling and wrestlers are on television. Bio stubs? That wouldn't work for non-wrestler pages. There's no really obvious category, and since there are a lot of articles, I think it deserves its own.

 * I'll be using it a lot.
 * If anything, this is for my own ease of use, since I create and edit wrestling articles all the time. Go ahead and check my contribs. I've noticed a number of other frequent editors to wrestling articles, and hopefully it'll help them too.

So that's the long and short of it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Chrysaor 23:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that we need this category and I'm not going to challenge it, but in the future you might want to think of getting new stub templates approved at WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria. (There is no official Wikipedia policy that says you have to do this, but it helps to have a community consensus before you put a lot of work into it.)
 * I'll be keeping an eye out for a better image. The current headshot doesn't mean much if you don't know enough about wrestling to recognize a particular wrestler. I understand how hard it is to find the perfect image! (A smaller one would also be nice.) -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah yes, I figured there was some kind of approval system for these things, but I didn't find it. Although I admit didn't spend forever looking for it. That's more or less why I posted this defense here. I didn't put a ton of work into this, though. It's not really hard to copy-and-paste a template and add it to a couple pages. Feel free to try to find a better picture. I figured Rocky would have the best chance of being recognized by the general public, but I wouldn't be offended if you or someone else changed it. If you think the picture should be smaller, go ahead and change it. I just didn't want it to be so small as to be unrecognizable.

 * In the meantime, I'll try to turn a wrong into a right and propose this template at the WikiProject Stub sorting page.  --Chrysaor 03:15, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe a pic of two wrestlers in a lock-up? That I think would immediately suggest "pro wrestling".   — Gwalla | Talk 21:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New image
Someone just changed the associated pic to the WWF's old block logo. I reverted this change, mainly because not all wrestling is WWE. If someone created a stub article for Buff Bagwell, say, an old WWF logo wouldn't belong on it. But admittedly the pic isn't the greatest. I'm looking for a better one. --Chrysaor 20:39, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Here's an image I found on a site called Obsessed With Wrestling. I'm not sure how recognizable it is at small size. As a bonus, it's a picture of Flair and Hogan, though it's tough to tell. Would this work better? --Chrysaor 21:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

 * I dunno...it's pretty hard to make out. Maybe if the space around Flair and Hogan was made transparent.   — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was the person who actually changed it to the old WWF logo. The thought crossed my mind that not all wrestling is WWE, but it is the name most associated with it around the world and perhaps more importantly the picture was easily viewable and had a white background. It was most likely public domain as well, unlike most wrestling pictures. I understand your argument, but you can also make the argument that all wrestling isn't the Rock (or Hulk Hogan and Ric Flair). Rather, the WWF logo seemed to be the most iconic image that comes to most people's minds when they think about wrestling so the most-likely public domain logo seemed to be a good fit.

Although I still think that the image I uploaded was better, if you find another one, try to make sure it looks recognizable when scaled to a 30 pixel width and has/looks good on a white background. The art stub seems to be a good sample of a how a stub pic is used. :) --Jtalledo 23:09, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It was a good quality image, no doubt...but I just didn't think it was right. Many old-school icons of the sport, like Bruno Sammartino, want nothing to do with WWE after its foray into more adult-oriented fare, and would have major problems with its logo being on an article associated with them. Some old-school fans are the same way. Oh, and as an aside, there's no way the old WWF block logo is public domain. They still show it on their TV from time to time as part of old footage, they just aren't allowed to use the WWF scratch logo anymore. We can use logos under fair use, but having it in a template shown on many pages could be seen as WWE endorsement of Wikipedia, which would be problematic.

 * This category's a tough one. I'm aware of what makes a good stub template image. My reasoning was, many categories have their best-known icon as the stub image, such as the Mona Lisa, Shakespeare for theater, Mickey Mouse for Disney, etc. So I figured Rock was appropriate, since he's more recent than Hogan and better known than Flair. I think it works for now. I also scaled it down a bit. --Chrysaor 23:47, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

 * Point taken. Hope you find a decent pic. --Jtalledo 00:20, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Third pic
I have to admit the new stub picture Image:Prowrestlingstub.png looks pretty good. It's a little hard to see what's happening in that picture, but yes, it's way better than having the Rock's head on all the pages with the stub note on it. I've tagged it with a tag for now.

Does anyone have information on the source of the image used to make the picture? --Jtalledo (talk) 14:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Asking Mattrobs would probably be the best way to find out.
 * The picture's definitely better, but it's a bit big. And most of the other stub template images don't have a Wikipedia logo. --Chrysaor 01:27, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd ask him, but he never checks his talk page. I know because one other user has tried to contact him regarding the copyright status of a lot of the images that he has uploaded to no avail. I agree that the picture is a little big and that the Wikipedia stub logo looks out of place there. I'd say we should keep it for now, but keep trying to find a better pic. I'm thinking some clipart should suffice. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 01:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you tried "e-mail this user"?   — Gwalla | Talk 06:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope, and don't want to. I don't like e-mailing people through Wikipedia. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't really matter what is actually happening in the picture, it's just to give viewers the impression of "wrestling" and the wikipedia puzzle piece gives the impression of "stub". I was thinking of making the actual wrestling image in the shape of a puzzle piece, but that was ditched. I don't think a source would make a difference – I could get several images and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, but I would deem it suitable for the "fair use" policy. I firstly thought it was too big, but any smaller and you couldn't identify it. Once again, I think the Wikipdia puzzle piece is necessary because we are not just defining an article as "professional wrestling", we are defining it as "professional wresling stub". The puzzle piece suggests uncompleteness, etc. — mattrobs 07:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another new picture
If anyone is considering finding a new stub pic, how about the NWA World Heavyweight Championship belt? It's got a rich history dating to the beginning of modern professional wrestling, and the belt was the precursor to both the WCW World Heavyweight Championship belt and the World Heavyweight Championship belt. --Jtalledo (talk) 7 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
 * I don't know. TNA uses that belt design, and it may seem like an endorsement. --Chrysaor July 7, 2005 04:47 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. TNA isn't even technically affiliated with the NWA any more, they just use two of their titles. We could use a generic belt, but a championship belt is synonymous with boxing as well. The way I see it, there are several options for a stub picture:
 * The face of a single wrestler: We saw this with the picture of The Rock, but that didn't entirely work because it looked awkward and didn't broadly encompass professional wrestling both past and present. The NWA belt represents both past and present and should look just fine if we a decent quality picture.
 * Several wrestlers: Doesn't work because the icon should be small and it's hard to see what the picture is and what it represents.
 * Clipart or logos: Everyone agreed that the WWF logo was too narrow a logo, so all logos for particular promotions are out. Unless someone can find a piece of clipart of two Generic characters grappling (something along the lines of the little AOL Instant Messenger guy) or create one (maybe using Inkscape?), this might be out as well.

 * The NWA title seems to be a good choice for now. I think maybe we're overthinking this. There are stub articles that use a single, clear picture without issue. Image:Gamepad_Icon.png is used for computer and video games stubs and is a Gravis Gamepad Pro PC Gamepad – when I look at it, I don't think about Gravis or PC gaming being endorsed. --Jtalledo (talk) 7 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

New picture
I changed the stub picture. The other one was alright, but Violetriga made the image smaller, so it was barely recognizable. The image Image:Prowrestlingstub.jpg is just an A.W.A tag team belt which is no longer in use. The A.W.A isn't around anymore and it's not a singles belt, so I figure it won't be too controversial. ;) --Jtalledo (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Template picture
It's not a good idea to use fair use images as stub pictures. Fair use says that fair use images can't be used in templates. It makes sense - fair use doesn't extend to making a page look pretty. Apparently, the previous image I used was deleted for the same reason. It's also not a good idea to use images that need to be resized for stub templates - they increase strain on the servers. At any rate, the generic stub jigsaw piece is adequate. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Prowrestling-stub


text:
NRCS

NRCS may refer to:

 * National Rail Chaplaincy Service, UK
 * National Red Cross/Crescent Societies, the collected national branches of the worldwide aid charity
 * National Regulator for Compulsory Specifications, an agency of the South African Government Department of Trade and Industry
 * National Replacement Character Set, a character set for computer terminals
 * Natural Resources Conservation Service, a US government agency
 * Nepal Red Cross Society, an aid charity
 * Nigerian Red Cross Society, an aid charity

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

title: NRCS


text:
Civil twilight (disambiguation)

Civil twilight is the brightest phase of twilight, the illumination of the lower atmosphere when the Sun itself is not directly visible because it is below the horizon.

Civil twilight may also refer to:
 * Civil Twilight (band), a South African four-piece rock band
 * Civil Twilight (album), 2010
 * "Civil Twilight", a 2007 song by The Weakerthans from their album Reunion Tour

title: Civil twilight (disambiguation)


text:
Talk:Miles Franklin

Untitled
I left intact the word "whilst" used by the previous writer, since it is just the sort of word Sybylla would have used in her teenage diary. It would be good if someone could include in this article a picture of Miles Franklin, or preferably two pictures--one of her as a teenager and one from her days of greatest literary productivity in the mid-1930s.

Sourcing
There are lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article, some verging on opinion and subjectivity. It needs more work. Sterry2607 09:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Outline of " My Brilliant Career"
I will be replacing the section Life and Career. I will be writing adding some background information on Miles Franklin's novel My Brilliant Career. The things that I will be focusing on are when did she write it, How old was she, and How long it take for her to write it. Sunflower 123Sunflower 123 (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

sources for "My Brilliant Career"
1)Erskine, Thomas L. "Miles Franklin." Magill’S Survey Of World Literature, Revised Edition (2009): 1-5. Literary Reference Center. Web. 15 July 2016.

2) Sheridan, Susan. "My Brilliant Career: The Career Of The Career." Australian Literary Studies 20.4 (2002): 330. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 14 July 2016.

3)webby, Elizabeth. "Reading My Brilliant Career." Australian Literary Studies 20.4 (2002): 350. MasterFILE Elite. Web. 14 July 2016.

Sunflower123Sunflower 123 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Those will need to be in the article, not here on the talk page. Also use caution when removing other sources, or content supported by those sources. You may find Help:Referencing for beginners helpful. Please stick to a neutral point of view and write in a formal tone as well, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miles Franklin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906153522/http://www.milesfranklin.com.au/about_history to http://www.milesfranklin.com.au/about_history
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/miles/miles_guide.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sl.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/miles/miles_guide.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

fascism?
Miles Franklin is part of the category Category:Australian fascists. This was news to me, and I can't see it discussed in the article. I have removed this category for now. I'm assuming it was vandalism? - Chris.sherlock (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems to have happened here. But I have looked at some sources and this might actually be something this article needs to explore, in particular I found this source. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Miles Franklin


text:
Talk:List of high schools in New Jersey

From VfD
On 2 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/High schools in New Jersey for a record of the discussion.

Based on that discussion, future editors are requested to:
 * 1) Move it to the correct List of high schools in X form
 * 2) Add a header to the article cautioning future editors that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory
 * 3) send to Cleanup because it simply does not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists.

Rossami (talk) 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to wikicity
If you wish to edit articles about schools you can try Students Wikicity where those articles will be more than welcom. Beta m (talk)

Fix
I changed the name of Allied Health in Neptune to include 'The' at the beginning, because their website lists it in that manner. Also added other MCVSD schools. --Bcshell 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Montclair High School
I'll be adding this page. I only hope Montclair, VA or CA don't have an MHS. JHMM13 (T | C)  06:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Someone leave a message on my talk if you have any comments.

Old Tappan/Demarest (Northern Valley)
These two schools are listed as "Old Tappan High School" and "Demarest..." on the page. Both are red links. Both of these two schools are very persistent in listing themselves as "Northern Valley Regional High School at OT/D," so I'm not sure what to define common usage, as my experience has been that the two schools use the Nothern Valley version, while locals (aka other Bergen County residents) other than the schools themselves use "Old Tappan" and "Demarest"--not sure what the students themselves use.

They also commonly abbreviate themselves as NVRHS at/@ OT or D/Dem, which usually is confusing becuase "Old Tappan" or "OT" is easier to recognize than NVRHS@OT and NVHRS@Dem in a list of teams or something.

 * Both references to the high schools were changed to NVRHS at Old Tappan and NVRHS at Demarest, respectively. The pages need to be created, but all references to each HS had the "at" inserted between NVRHS and the location. Alansohn 05:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox
Those that can and have time, please make sure that all the schools have a in their article.

Self-reference
WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/New Jersey is clearly a useful link but is also a self-reference. It probably ought to be kept on this talk page somewhere, certainly it should not be inserted into the article. TheGrappler 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Paterson's Performing Arts school(s)
Are Rosa L. Parks School of Fine and Performing Arts and "Academy of Performing Arts, Paterson" the same school? The latter title requires disambiguation. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on http://www.paterson.k12.nj.us/11_schools/schools.php I'm assuming they are the same school. I suppose there's a small chance that the latter is a private school, so please do correct me if that's the case. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on my Google search, it appears that the latter building now houses the YES Academy – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of high schools in New Jersey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050617233002/http://schooltree.org/high/ to http://schooltree.org/high/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of high schools in New Jersey


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Konop

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ben Konop
This political figure is running for office to challenge incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Michael G. Oxley. Does this make him inherently noteworthy to begin with, regardless of the outcome? GRider\talk 23:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete until he wins the election. RickK 07:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Major party candidates who run for President are notable. I'll even say the same for the Senate. But not for the House. There's 400+ of them every two years. Even the winners barely clear the bar just for taking their seat. Delete. -R. fiend 07:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; major party candidates for national-level office are inherently notable, and good articles can certainly be written about them. I'll see what I can expand in this one, perhaps. Meelar (talk) 08:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fiend - Delete. There's far too many low-level political figures in any country, and most of them aren't notable for encyclopedia entries. Radiant! 09:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Not quite notable enough. Trilobite (Talk) 10:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in support of Meelar. Kappa 14:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If wikipedia is going to have entries on everyone who's run for Congress, then we must prepare for about 20,000 substubs from just the past hundred years. Even if elected these guys wield little power individually. Are we going to have articles on everyone who's run for State Senate too? -R. fiend 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Depending on the outcome of this vfd, I have begun separating bio-stubs into a new cat called   to simplify my next go-round. GRider\talk 17:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: No, we won't have articles on state senators unless they're exceptional in some regard; they have smaller constituencies and less impact on national policies. But winning a major party nomination for high-level office means notability in my book. Also, I've somewhat expanded the article. Please look over the new version, future voters. Meelar (talk) 19:00, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * The expanded article still doesn't give much useful information; the minor details of the campaign that are given can basically be said about every race in the country. Being outraised in contributions is, as the article says, conventional, as is accusing the incumbent of being out of touch with voters, as is a Democrat receiving money from labor unions. And working as a laywer before running for congress is pretty run of the mill too. Nothing here really. I still maintain that running for an office like Congressman (whose constituencies aren't that big, really) does not make one notable. I think time spent expanding stubs would be better spent on current and past House members, not the people they defeated. And I think someone who actually serves in a state legislature is at least as significant a figure than someone who merely ran for Congress. I do not look forward to 20,000 "This guy ran for congress once and lost" articles, unless, as you said, they are exceptional in some way. -R. fiend 19:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, you're right: we should have articles on individual state legislators. Still keep this one, though. Best, Meelar (talk) 03:05, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vagrant 20:12, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I believe some candidates can be notable just because they're candidates, but IMHO, in 99% of cases, the following guidelines should apply:
 * Is the election itself particularly historic (for example, almost all defeated candidates who were even marginally significant in the Iraqi election should probably have a stub, as it was the first. In contract, another significant election, the california recall of 2003, probably only merits page creation for relatively major defeated candidates)
 * Did the candidate do anything groundbreaking as part of the campaign? (Can't think of an example right now, but what if Howard Dean had revolutionized fund raising methods by running for state senate? That sort of a guideline)
 * Does the fact that this person was a candidate push them over the threshold for notability when you look at all merits as a package? (for example, semi-notable business leaders who run for office)
 * If none of the above apply, no dedicated apply, they may deserve mention on another relevant page, but not their own article
 * While I'm relatively new as a registered user, and my opinion might carry less weight than most, I'm thinking of the long term future of the wikipedia namespace -- you don't want to establish precidents that make the quantity of articles required in 50 years completely unmanagable, but you want to credit truely notable individuals, still. Obviously, you all can disagree, but I feel like more explicit standards to resolve this issue are badly needeed.EggplantWizard 03:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Running for office does not make one inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just underthe bar of notability for me. Megan1967 08:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep running for the US House is at least as significant as publishing one book or releasing one album, and we regularly keep authors and bands who have done no more than this. Johntex 15:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we generally keep authors who have written one book unless that book was particularly notable. Am I right? Literally millions of people have written books. Also, writing a book is, in a way, more notable than running for office in that a book may survive for centuries, but once someone's race for office is over, it's over, they're not really leaving anything behind. -R. fiend 16:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Johntex, "there are other questionable articles in Wikipedia" doesn't seem like an argument for keeping this one. I'd recommend voting each article on its merits. For what it's worth, Wile E. Heresiarch 19:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Having articles on failed political candidates isn't like having articles on published authors or bands that have released an album. It's more like having articles on people wrote a book and couldn't find a publisher, or bands that couldn't get a recording contract. Isomorphic 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Would set a precedent for an unmanageably large number of articles that would never be read. Isomorphic 20:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments above. I like EggplantWizard's recommended criteria.  Rossami (talk) 22:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ComCat 02:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not quite notable enough yet.  May be in the future.  Jonathunder 22:38, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bogus nomination - David Gerard 23:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it bogus - especially as the consensus is wavering on this one. Please be civil. Radiant! 12:14, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable. JamesBurns 09:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Sharon Bruneau

Sharon Leigh Bruneau (born February 1, 1964) is a model and retired professional Canadian female bodybuilder and fitness competitor.

Early life and education
Bruneau, a French-Canadian who self-identifies as Métis, was born in the mining city of Timmins, Ontario and says that her "...native heritage is of Cherokee blood". Few Indigenous Canadian women are involved in sport and even fewer in female bodybuilding, which makes Sharon even more proud of her accomplishments.

Career
She began her career as a fashion model, at which she was successful until contracting a bad case of pneumonia, which caused her to lose a lot of weight. Soon after her recovery, she began training with weights to regain the weight she needed to get back to modelling. After achieving a somewhat toned build, she was rejected at model agencies for being oversized. She then decided to give up modeling and dedicate herself to bodybuilding. During her bodybuilding career Sharon had gained nearly 50 pounds, but then cut back when she changed to fitness competitions. Bruneau was on the cover of Muscle & Fitness and Flex.

Weider Health and Fitness publications had taken Sharon on as one of their first ever signed female representatives from 1991-1998.

Sharon retired from bodybuilding competition after the 1994 Ms. Olympia contest, switching to fitness competition. After placing 11th out of 17 competitors in the 1995 Fitness Olympia, Sharon had noted that her low ranking was due to her muscularity. In 1997, Ms. Fitness Olympia's judging procedure involved awarding points to the women with an overall toned body and marking down those who appeared "overly muscular". Sharon can now be found inspiring people all over the world with her motivational workshops where she speaks about health and fitness.

She has had minor roles in the movies: Tornado Run (1995), Nemesis 2: Nebula (1995), Nemesis 3: Prey Harder (1996), and R.S.V.P. (2002). In 2007, she did minor stuntwork for the movie Smokin' Aces. Sharon was also offered a role in the movie Endangered Species (1982) to play a bad alien. Around the 1980s and 1990s, many agents were recruiting body builders and wrestlers for sci-fi films. This, in turn, offered a wider range in career possibilities for fitness and bodybuilding athletes.

Portrayal of Indigenous Heritage in Flex Magazine
Sharon Bruneau featured in Flex magazine showing off her muscular physique in tribal-like attire, with bones around her neck and a spear in her hands. The caption associated with this image referenced Sharon stating, "I am particularly proud of my Native American heritage to which this photo pays homage."

Contest history

 * 1991 IFBB North American Championships - 1st (HW)
 * 1991 IFBB North American Championships - Overall Winner
 * 1992 Ms. International - 4th
 * 1992 IFBB Ms. Olympia - 11th
 * 1993 Ms. International - 7th
 * 1993 IFBB Ms. Olympia - 10th
 * 1994 Ms. International - 6th
 * 1994 IFBB Ms. Olympia - 16th
 * 1995 Fitness Olympia - 11th

Films

 * Tornado Run - 1995 action movie (VHS and DVD)
 * Nemesis 2: Nebula - 1995 sci-fi action thriller with Sue Price and Debbie Muggli (VHS)
 * Nemesis 3: Time Lapse - 1996 sci-fi action thriller with Sue Price, Debbie Muggli, Ursula Alberto (VHS)
 * R.S.V.P. - 2002 horror movie
 * Smokin' Aces - 2007 action movie (DVD)

title: Sharon Bruneau


text:
Pranksta Rap

"Pranksta Rap" is the ninth episode of the sixteenth season of the American animated television series The Simpsons. It originally aired on the Fox network in the United States on February 13, 2005. The episode was directed by Mike B. Anderson and written by Matt Selman. The episode title refers to the music genre gangsta rap.

In this episode, Bart disobeys his parents to attend a concert and fakes his kidnapping to avoid being punished. Rapper 50 Cent guest starred as himself and Dana Gould guest starred as Barney Fife.

Plot
Bart sees a commercial for a concert held by a hip hop artist named Alcatraaaz. He asks for Homer's permission, and he agrees when Bart says he will pay for the ticket himself. However, as he tries to leave for the concert, Marge forbids him from going, and Homer is forced to agree with her.

Bart sneaks out of his bedroom window to attend the concert. During the concert, Alcatraaaz drops his microphone, which lands in Bart's hands. He challenges Bart to a rap battle. Bart does an impromptu rap and wins, so he gets a ride home from the concert with Alcatraaaz. As he arrives, he overhears Marge and Homer, who are angry that Bart disobeyed them and went to the concert. To avoid punishment, he fakes being kidnapped and goes on the run. Homer and Marge are devastated, and the fake kidnapping is covered by the media. Chief Wiggum vows to solve the case, but the press laughs at him due to his incompetence. Bart asks Milhouse for a place to stay until the publicity stops, so Milhouse suggests staying at his father's apartment.

Bart calls the Simpson house impersonating the kidnapper, which is being recorded by Wiggum. Hearing how sad Marge is without him, Bart comforts her as himself, but cuts the call short when his stovetop popcorn begins to pop. Wiggum listens to the recording and recognizes the noise of the popcorn as his favorite brand. He asks Apu who buys the brand, and he says that only Kirk and Wiggum buy it. They arrest Kirk for the kidnapping, and Wiggum is promoted to police commissioner. Seeing how badly Milhouse has been affected by his father's arrest, Bart confesses his hoax to Wiggum, who convinces him to keep it secret because Kirk is better off in prison because he gets meals and the adoration of women for being a felon.

Lisa deduces the truth after finding a sweater from the concert, but Homer destroys the evidence because he sold the film rights to Bart's story and already spent the money. Undeterred, Lisa and Principal Skinner travel to Alcatraaaz's home, where they find footage of Bart at the concert. Moments later, Homer, Wiggum and Bart arrive and try to convince Lisa to stop because no one has been hurt. Alcatraaaz suggests they resolve the situation by throwing a pool party to the delight of everyone but Lisa.

Production
The hip hop songs in the episode were written and performed by Boots Riley of the rap group The Coup. Writer Matt Selman wrote the lyrics. The character Alcatraaaz appeared to be modeled after rapper Ludacris, who later appeared in the eighteenth season episode "You Kent Always Say What You Want".

Rapper 50 Cent appeared as himself in a cameo appearance.

Legacy

Andrew Martin of Prefix Mag named 50 Cent his eighth favorite musical guest on The Simpsons out of a list of ten. Charles Hiroshi Garrett cited the rapper's appearance as part of a trend of hip-hop artists who appear on film and television to ridicule themselves.

A screencap from the episode showing a rapper wearing a chain necklace with the words "Thursday the 20th" has become an Internet meme, with the screencap getting circulated across the Internet on the twentieth day of a month if it is a Thursday. In October 2022, the meme became a purported prediction of the series when it was the date that Liz Truss resigned as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

title: Pranksta Rap


text:
Talk:Government agencies in Sweden

Agencies missing
Integrationskommittén comes to mind. No one heard of it, yet it existed until today when is was dissmantled by the new minister of immigration. Lord Metroid 12:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Idea
Let's chart the expenditures that the different aganecies make use of. I imagine a tree like structure where one can see first how much money each agency get and then how that agency make use of the available money. Lord Metroid 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization in the page name
A discussion elsewhere (at what is now Talk:Swedish Ombudsman against Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual Orientation) has led me to the conclusion that the title of this page ought to be Government agencies in Sweden, without capitalization, since the title isn't a proper noun in itself. This would bring the name of the article in line with the name of List of United States federal agencies and Category:Swedish government agencies.

(The names of the respective agencies, however, are proper nouns and should be capitalized just the way they are in the article.) Alarm 23:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Done — in cooperation! :-) --Johan Magnus 04:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Government agencies in Sweden


text: Category:Italian soldiers

title: Category:Italian soldiers


text:
The Power of Your Love

The Power of Your Love is the first live contemporary worship album released by Hillsong Music — the first album in the live praise and worship series of contemporary worship music released by the label.

Production
The majority of the songs for the album were written and composed by Geoff Bullock, the then Worship Pastor of Hillsong Church. It was recorded live by Bullock, Darlene Zschech, and the Hillsong team.

The cover was designed by a local design firm in Sydney. The font used for the title is Century Gothic (a standard font on Microsoft Windows). The front cover is a panograph taken by Christian photographer; Ken Duncan. His panographs are seen on three other Hillsong album covers. There are no photographs of the actual live service in the original CD sleeve design. The updated version shows "what's new from Hillsong Music Australia".

Reception
In June 1993, Tony Cummings of Cross Rhythms rated the album as 7 out of 10 and described the group as willing to "take on the full hard rocking armoury of AOR to shout praises to God". He summarised the album with "What they lack in subtlety they make up for in exuberance ... Recommended to radical worshippers".

In 2000, the album was certified gold by Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) for shipment of 35,000 units.

Track listing

 * 1) "The Time Has Come" (Geoff Bullock)
 * 2) "We Will Rise" (Bullock)
 * 3) "You Placed Your Love" (Bullock)
 * 4) "Your Love" (Bullock)
 * 5) "Blessed Be" (Bullock)
 * 6) "You Are My Rock" (Bullock)
 * 7) "Hear Me Calling" (Bullock)
 * 8) "Refresh My Heart" (Bullock)
 * 9) "The Power of Your Love" (Bullock)
 * 10) "Lord We Come" (Bullock)
 * 11) "I Will Worship You" (Bullock)
 * 12) "You Are My God" (Bullock & Gail Dunshea)
 * 13) "Holy Spirit Rise" (Bullock)
 * 14) "Glory" (Bullock)
 * 15) "Latter Rain" (Bullock)
 * 16) "The Great Southland" (Bullock)

Credits

 * Geoff Bullock - worship pastor, piano, vocals
 * Russell Fragar - keyboards, music director
 * Darlene Zschech - vocals, vocal producer
 * David Evans - vocals
 * David Moyse - guitar
 * Allan Chard - guitar
 * Andy James - bass
 * Adam Simek - drums
 * Stuart Fell - percussion
 * Jeff Todd - engineer, mixer
 * Andrew McPherson - assistant engineer
 * William Bowden - mastering
 * Cameron Wade - production manager
 * Nick Asha - front of house Manager
 * Chris Googe - foldback engineer
 * Brian Houston - executive producer
 * Michael Murphy - executive producer

title: The Power of Your Love


text:
Talk:List of high schools in Pennsylvania

From VfD
On 2 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Votes for deletion/High schools in Pennsylvania for a record of the discussion.

Based on that discussion, future editors are requested to:
 * 1) Move it to the correct List of high schools in X form
 * 2) Add a header to the article cautioning future editors that Wikipedia is not a repository of links and Wikipedia is not a directory
 * 3) send to Cleanup because it simply does not contain enough data to meet the purpose of lists.

Rossami (talk) 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Invitation to wikicity
If you wish to edit articles about schools you can try Students Wikicity where those articles will be more than welcom. Beta m (talk)

Somebody get some info on Portage Area High School in Cambria County

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of high schools in Pennsylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071108215216/http://www.ltsd.k12.pa.us/lshs/site/default.asp to http://www.ltsd.k12.pa.us/lshs/site/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070309164557/http://www.montoursville.k12.pa.us/MHS/MHShome.htm to http://www.montoursville.k12.pa.us/MHS/MHShome.htm
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130415115914/http://ntiogasdportal.ntiogasd.org:8081/CVHS/index.HTML to http://ntiogasdportal.ntiogasd.org:8081/CVHS/index.HTML

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


text: Talk:The Power of Your Love

title: Talk:The Power of Your Love


text: User talk:69.165.227.190

title: User talk:69.165.227.190


text:
User:Rlandmann/WikiWings

WikiWings

This award has been created to recognise excellence in aircraft articles here on Wikipedia, in the hope that this will encourage further quality work in this area of the project. This is not an "official" Wikipedia or WikiProject Aircraft award - it's just the opinion of one user. Hopefully, though, others will agree that these articles represent some of the best aircraft content here, even if many will be of too specialised interest to ever gain recognition as a featured article.

 * January 2005 (inaugural WikiWings) to Ingoolemo for C-108 Flying Fortress
 * February 2005 Nigel Brand for the Potez 630 family
 * March 2005 - no award
 * April 2005 Pibwl for the Lublin R-XIII
 * May 2005 Ahunt for the Grumman American AA-5

title: User:Rlandmann/WikiWings


text:
World's Smallest Political Quiz

The World's Smallest Political Quiz is a ten question educational quiz, designed primarily to be more accurate than the one-dimensional "left–right" or "liberal–conservative" political spectrum by providing a two-dimensional representation. The Quiz is composed of two parts: a diagram of a political map; and a series of 10 short questions designed to help viewers quickly score themselves and others on that map.

The 10 questions are divided into two groups, economic and personal, of five questions each. The answers to the questions can be Agree, Maybe or Disagree. Twenty points are given for an Agree, ten points for a Maybe, and zero for Disagree. The scores are added for each group and can be zero to one hundred. These two numbers are then plotted on the diamond-shaped chart and the result displays the political group that agrees most with the quiz taker. The map consists of two dimensions: Progressive – Moderate – Conservative and Libertarian – Moderate – Authoritarian. Those who score 100 are plotted in the top as Libertarian, those scoring a 0 are plotted on the bottom as Authoritarian, those who score 100 at personal, and 0 at economic are placed as Progressive to the left, and vice versa if someone scores 0 at personal and 100 at economic they are placed at the right as conservative. A score of 50 of both places the quiz-taker in the middle as Moderate. The edges for Moderate goes at between 35 and 65 on each scale.

The quiz was designed primarily for an American audience designed by the non-partisan libertarian organization Advocates for Self Government and published on a web page of that organization. The quiz was created by Marshall Fritz, and associates the quiz-taker with one of five categories: libertarian, left-liberal, centrist, right-conservative, or statist.

History

The chart associated with the Quiz is based on the Nolan Chart devised during 1969 by libertarian political scientist David Nolan. Nolan reasoned that virtually all human political action can be divided into two general categories: economic and personal. In order to express visually this insight, Nolan developed a two axis graph. One axis was for economic freedom, and the other was for personal freedom.

Nolan introduced his chart by an article entitled "Classifying and Analyzing Politico-Economic Systems" published in the January 1971 issue of The Individualist, a libertarian newsletter.

In 1985, Marshall Fritz founded the Advocates for Self Government. Part of the Advocates' mission was to explain libertarian ideas to the public. Fritz found that Nolan's chart was a great help with explaining how libertarianism was distinct from conservatism and liberalism. He created the Quiz in 1987, and it was the first political Quiz posted on the Internet.

The first form the Quiz took was as a business card, with the ten questions printed on it along with the chart. As of August 2004, over 7 million Quizzes had been printed. The Quiz, then, is a combination of two elements: Nolan's chart, and Fritz's idea of ten short questions to help a person find their associated place on that graph.

The quiz has also been represented in other forms: reprinted in newspapers, used in classrooms, and recommended by leading high school and college textbooks. During 1993, Brian Towey, with the help of his wife Ingrid, produced a full-color, instant-scoring computer Quiz on disk, for the DOS and Windows operating systems. Programmer Jon Kalb created an equally advanced version for Macintosh computers. Toby Nixon created an ASCII text copy of the Quiz in the era prior to the World Wide Web, and this version was circulated in newsgroups, computer networks, bulletin boards, and on software. During 1995, Paul Schmidt created the Advocates' website, with the current interactive version of the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

As of November 1, 2013, the online World's Smallest Political Quiz has been taken 20 million times since it was first put on the Web in 1995.

Modifications to questions
Six of the ten questions were substantially revised, or replaced entirely, in 2004.

 * Former questions that were removed:
 * Let peaceful people cross borders freely.
 * Minimum wage laws cause unemployment. Repeal them.
 * All foreign aid should be privately funded.

 * New questions that were added:
 * There should be no National ID card.
 * Let people control their own retirement; privatize Social Security.
 * Replace government welfare with private charity.

 * Revised questions:
 * People are better off with free trade than with tariffs. → End government barriers to international free trade.
 * End taxes. Pay for services with user fees. → Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.
 * Businesses and farms should operate without government subsidies. → End "corporate welfare." No government handouts to business.

Uses
On August 23, 2000, Portrait of America conducted a national telephone survey of 822 likely voters. Using the same questions and scale, the survey found 32% of American voters are centrists; 16% are libertarians; 14% are authoritarians; 13% liberal; 7% are conservative; and, 17% border one or more categories. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

According to e-mails collected by the quiz's advocates, it has been used in 420 schools in the United States. The online content associated with several textbooks is also claimed to feature the Quiz.

title: World's Smallest Political Quiz


text:
Jewel cichlid

Hemichromis is a genus of fishes from the cichlid family, known in the aquarium trade as jewel cichlids. Jewel cichlids are native to Africa. Within West Africa, Hemichromis species are found in creeks, streams, rivers and lakes with a variety of water qualities including brackish water lagoons. As traditionally defined, the genus includes two distinctly different groups: The five-spotted cichlid group (Hemichromis sensu stricto) and the true jewel cichlid group (Rubricatochromis), which sometimes are recognized as distinct genera.

Maximum size reported for the different species of Hemichromis ranges from 6.5 to(-) in total length. Maximum sizes in aquaria tend to be slightly smaller than in the wild.

Many Hemichromis species are brightly coloured, though brighter body colouration is generally evident during breeding. Sexual dimorphism is limited, though male jewel cichlids are typically more brightly coloured and in some species have more pointed anal, ventral and dorsal fins. In some species, such as Hemichromis cristatus, the females can have coloring as bright as the males. Like most cichlids, jewel cichlids have highly developed brood care. Hemichromis species typically form monogamous breeding pairs and the female spawns on a flat surface such as a leaf or stone. Both parents guard the eggs, and participate in fry raising.

Taxonomy

This genus consists of two distinct groups that possibly should be moved into separate genera. The first group, the so-called five-spotted cichlids (including H. elongatus, H. faciatus and H. frempongi), would remain in the genus Hemichromis, while the rest, the true jewel cichlids, would be moved to their own genus. In 2022, the new genus Rubricatochromis was described for the true jewel cichlids.

The species level taxonomy of Hemichromis is not fully resolved. Although some of the localized species are well-defined, this is not the case for all the more widespread species and there are several distinct color forms of unclear taxonomic status. For example, H. faciatus of the Nile basin and those in West Africa may belong to separate species, but H. frempongi of Lake Bosumtwi might be a synonym of H. fasciatus. H. elongatus of the Congo River basin and upper Zambezi may represent a species that is distinct from H. faciatus elsewhere, and "dwarf" populations in lakes Barombi Koto and Mboandong may also be distinct. In the Nile delta, there appear to be two morphologically distinct populations that traditionally have been included in, but might be separate from, H. letourneuxi elsewhere in the Nile system. A comprehensive study of the genus also points to the existence of two undescribed species of jewel cichlids in the Guinea region. H. saharae was generally considered a synonym of H. letourneuxi until 2014 where a genetic study confirmed its distinction, although some have opted to retain the two as a single species. The taxonomic confusion in this genus has been further complicated by fish in the aquarium trade, where there have been frequent misidentification, hybridization between species and selective breeding. For example, the introduced population in Florida, which is based on aquarium fish, was identified as H. bimaculatus up until the 1990s, but likely are H. letourneuxi or hybrids. A similar pattern can be seen in introduced populations elsewhere that traditionally were identified as H. bimaculatus, but likely are other species, especially H. letourneuxi.

Species
There are currently 13 recognized species in this genus:

 * Hemichromis angolensis Steindachner, 1865
 * Hemichromis bimaculatus T. N. Gill, 1862 (Jewelfish)
 * Hemichromis camerounensis Bitja-Nyom, Agnèse, Pariselle, Bilong-Bilong, Gilles & Snoeks, 2021
 * Hemichromis cerasogaster (Boulenger, 1899)
 * Hemichromis elongatus (Guichenot, 1861) (Banded jewel cichlid)
 * Hemichromis exsul (Trewavas, 1933) (Turkana jewel cichlid)
 * Hemichromis fasciatus W. K. H. Peters, 1857 (Banded jewelfish, five-spot cichlid)
 * Hemichromis frempongi Loiselle, 1979
 * Hemichromis guttatus Günther, 1862
 * Hemichromis letourneuxi Sauvage, 1880
 * Hemichromis lifalili Loiselle, 1979
 * Hemichromis saharae Sauvage, 1880
 * Hemichromis stellifer Loiselle, 1979

Aquarium care
Jewel cichlids are neither suited to beginners, nor the usual community tank. Several young specimens may be kept in a spacious aquarium, with stones and wood for cover until a pair forms prior to breeding. Their innate aggression makes them good candidates for keeping in a monospecies aquarium, however this depends on a number of factors similar to all tropical cichlid fish; swimming and territory space, other aquatic inhabitants, diet and feeding frequency and tank layout.

Jewel cichlids are omnivorous and will eat both live foods and fish flakes.

Tank Setup
Here are some general guidelines for setting up a tank for Jewel Cichlid

 * Tank Size: A minimum tank size of 30 gallons is recommended for a pair of Jewel Cichlids, with an additional 10 gallons for each additional fish.
 * Water Parameters: Jewels prefer slightly acidic to neutral water (pH 6.5–7.5) with a temperature range of 75–82 °F. Keep the water clean by performing regular water changes (20–30% every 2 weeks).
 * Substrate and Decorations: Jewels like to dig, so a substrate of fine gravel or sand is recommended. They also enjoy having plenty of hiding places and territory to claim, so provide rocks, caves, and driftwood in the tank.
 * Filtration and Aeration: A good filtration system is important to maintain good water quality in the tank. Aeration is also recommended to increase oxygenation and water flow.
 * Tankmates: Jewels can be aggressive and territorial, so it's best to keep them with similarly-sized and equally-aggressive fish. Other cichlid species such as Convicts, Green Terrors, and Fire mouth can make good tankmates.
 * Feeding: Jewels are omnivorous and will eat a variety of foods, including pellets, flakes, frozen foods, and live foods. Offer a mix of these foods to provide a balanced diet.

title: Jewel cichlid


text:
Talk:Terracotta Army

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fejenn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 May 2020 and 3 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevin Tian06.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yueyuemia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

We're they influenced by Cypriot culture?
The Chinese terra cotta army is predated by the Cypriot terra cotta figures by 300-400 years. Did Cypriot culture at the time influence Chinese funeral rites or was there a third culture that influenced both? 2605:B100:122:DC9D:C828:D1BF:4B42:98ED (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 * (2 years later) Is there even a Wikipedia page for the terracotta army of Cyprus? If not, why not? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Controversies
The French page includes a section on serious claims of inauthenticity, which should be included here too. Quoting part: Ainsi, dans le premier chapitre, intitulé « Le Grand Empereur et les guerriers d'argile », de son livre La Chine est un cheval et l'univers une idée, le sinologue Jean Levi déclare que cet ensemble de statues serait un fauxsituationniste ... 81.5.56.97 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They never presented any evidence that it is fake, apart from what people have observed already, that is, the Terracotta Army are very unusual in the history of Chinese sculpture in their realistic portrayal and size, i.e. they judged it on purely stylistic and aesthetic ground. Western scientists have studied the figures and did not find anything untoward, so I don't think there is any basis to the claim. At most, briefly mention it in the Hellenistic link hypothesis (say, add half a sentence that due to the unusual nature of the statues, some have claimed that they are forgery), but really I'm not sure it has much credence among academic circle to be worth putting in. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * On that matter, has there been a particular past discussion on maintaining the paragraph regarding that bit of speculation? I went down the rabbit hole and it seems like the entire hypothesis is only supported by and originated from just one scholar. It's been over a decade since the claim was made and I haven't seen any further development of the hypothesis whatsoever within academia since. As such, it seems like a rather clear case of WP:UNDUE weight at this point to me. Sleath56 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone added a paragraph, which was disputed then trimmed, then others added more for opposing views. Whether it was proposed by one scholar or more is not that relevant (seems that there are people who think it could be true), but whether it was discussed further is. There was a further BBC documentary a few years later which expanded on possible Greek link, but presented little solid evidence (they tried to find Greek DNA evidence, a bit foolish I think, although they did say something on bronze casting technique). Some Chinese were outraged by the suggestion of Western influence, but they can't produce solid evidence against the idea other than rhetoric. I see no problem with adding it because its unusual nature needs to be mentioned, although the paragraph can certainly be trimmed or rewritten (e.g. write about its unusual nature, then briefly mention the Hellenistic influence theory and objection to it, and maybe half a sentence about forgery allegation). Hzh (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The procedure for assessing WP:DUE in terms of history/archaeology pages has been typically based on the existence of supporting coverage in academic WP:RS. In this regard, the presence of academic rebuttals or criticisms to those claims aren't particularly relevant for qualifying the claim itself as possessing due weight. As the criterion states: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia," where the principal condition is not just the viewpoint being "mentioned" but "held" by those RS. This would not maintain the merit of the claim here, as while it has been "mentioned" by a handful of RS in rebuttal, it is only "held" by one scholar.
 * Additionally, though it is rather intriguing as far as these theories go, even if the claim had met the standards of WP:DUE, it should be important to note that per WP:OR, Wikipedia doesn't take independent assessments in how "solid" the evidence for or against is nor how unique or unusual the claim is perceived to be beyond how other RS have assessed the matter. As such, the passage even then would still be frankly problematic given that the response (both the immediate wave of rebuttals and lack of adoption in scholarship in the decade since) within academic RS would mean that per WP:PROPORTION, the large majority of the body passage would need to proportionately highlight those rebuttals rather than showcase the original claim itself to avoid implying as if there is a 50:50 split on the matter.
 * Returning to the matter of due weight, case in point for a rather more high-profile demonstration: some fringe academics have supported the "Black Cleopatra" claim over the years while countless scholars have rebutted that theory. Even though that theory has been far more notable in both popular and scholarly coverage than nearly all other fringe speculations in the history-adjacent fields, the consensus for that page there ultimately has been that the claim doesn't merit a passage on the Cleopatra page itself per the criteria of due weight. In that instance, the claim itself was particularly notable enough that an article for the controversy was created instead. Given that the theory here has neither the level of support as the compared case, being proposed by just a sole scholar, nor the notability as a controversy in of itself to qualify for a page, maintaining it seems to be as a case of WP:UNDUE. Sleath56 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you might be making it a bigger issue than it is. As far as I can see, it is just one of many little issues surrounding the artefacts and site that people look at, e.g. is the mercury in the soil contamination or from the tomb, is the chromium coating on the sword contamination or purposefully added, etc. things that not many people take position on, but are still added to the article. In actual fact though, a number of other people appear to be believe there might be Greek influence, including at least one of the Chinese archaeologists. Just taking a casual look of people who cited Lukas Nickel, you can in fact find books/articles that appear supportive of the idea of Greek influence, and some not dismissive . You also get people who seem critical  but in fact does not dismissed entirely the possibility of Greek influence. Other sources just noted that this is what some people believe with no further comments. Frankly we don't know the proportion of pro and anti faction (but the pro does not appear to be a tiny minority), to try to suggest anything else would be OR. All I'm suggesting is to describe the whole issue in like two three sentences, trying to turn it into a full blown discourse is absurd. Hzh (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the impression that influence from the Hellenistic world or the Ancient Near East, perhaps vague and imprecise, is pretty widely accepted, not just in the West, but in China also. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Much belatedly revisiting this topic after I finally got around to combing through some of the recent literature published in the field, which I've further developed the passage to incorporate. At the very least, I believe this satisfactorily addresses the matter of WP:PROPORTION in the sense that the original passage in question implied, inaccurately, as if the sole theory discussed was the only existing hypothesis within WP:RS. The revision should now provide a comprehensive enough coverage of the historiographical and current state of academic study on this aspect of the objects. Sleath56 (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like you ignored what other people said and just do what you want to do. Just a brief glance would tell you that the edit is problematic, like that claim "sculptural naturalism derives from a Qin funerary tradition", which at no point the paper says. The paper says two different things - the naturalism comes from the sculpture being based on real people, and it would be consistent with a funerary tradition to supply everything the dead needed in the afterlife. The problem with such argument is that there existed no such sculptural realism in China before the terracotta army, and no such army figures have been seen since when this tradition of providing things for the afterlife is widely practiced even by commoners right up to the present days (providing things for the afterlife is hardly an exclusively Qin thing). Also the one source the paper refers to is a thesis we cannot access, ditto another one source (and I've no idea what that source is) on the supposed origin of naturalism of terracotta warriors - if they are something widely considered to be true, then you should find plenty of reliable sources that are publicly available without having to resort to such dubious sources. The WP:PROPORTION you claim is just a cover for dubious assertions. As I said, there is no reason to expand it, and we should try to condense it to two or three sentences, and that would be done later. Hzh (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need to be reductive with the passage and concise it for the sake of page aesthetics so long as WP:RS demonstrate a dynamic range of positions, which in the case of this topic, they appear to do. The fact alone that the original passage was essentially the presentation of a theory and two-thirds of the entire passage was spent for a rebuttal of it clearly demonstrates the existence of a high degree of engagement by RS on the topic, which the page is obligated to representatively reflect if the topic itself warrants WP:DUE coverage, which was the consensus reached previously above.
 * The "two things" that you've highlighted are the Hu et. al (2022) paper's conclusion and sub-conclusion. The opinion that "there existed no such sculptural realism" engages in WP:OR given that the paper is presenting one hypothesis on how such sculptural realism may have manifested.
 * On the subject of RS, I don't see the issue that you're asserting. The claim that the entire citational lineage embedded within an open-access academic source which is already RS must be open-access itself would virtually eliminate nearly all academic RS as eligible on Wikipedia, which isn't some manuscript tradition database.
 * On the adequacy of the RS ... I fail to see the point of contention here. Given that the very passage cites China Daily and The Conversation as RS, the characterization of theses within established academic journal and conference papers as "dubious assertions" is quite a thing to say.
 * Addressing the view that "there is no reason to expand it," I'd note that WP:BRD is a valid editorial procedure and as the revision was brought to the talk for feedback, phrasing one's disagreement with a BRD edit as "other editors merely doing what they want" seems unnecessary and that line of argument leads into WP:OWN territory if there is agreement that revision of some sort is required, yet that it should be "done later" despite evidently half a year of no movement on the process. Sleath56 (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What you wrote is essentially your own OR, not even given in the source, reliable or not, therefore cannot stay. The paper simply doesn't say what you claim it says, concision doesn't mean making up your own claim, especially when the central research of the paper is about whether the terracotta army is based on real people, rather than your claim of sculptural realism being derived from a funerary tradition. You should be able to give the direct quote that this is what the source say, but you can't, because it simply doesn't say it, for example, something being consistent with a tradition doesn't mean that tradition originated it, because that something may be borrowed from another culture different from their tradition but still consistent with their own tradition.
 * The idea such an important concept as the source of the sculptural realism in China can be found only in a student thesis and an old paper in obscure journal (if that cited Wenbo source is that) we can't check is simply bizarre. If the idea is true, it would be found in any authoritative book and journal. WP:SCHOLARSHIP in any case clearly states what is acceptable for academic sources (so no, not all journals are acceptable), for example it says that thesis should be used with care and only if they are publicly available (and we can't really check that if we don't even know if that thesis is written in English or Chinese). Note also it clearly stated that masters theses are not considered reliable unless it has demonstrable significant scholarly influence, citing that source really reeks of desperation. We also can't assess the value of the journal the paper cited, whether it has been not peer reviewed by the wider academic community, or a POV journal, or whatever it is. But whatever they are or what they say (we can't check if they say anything that demonstrate what you wrote), they are still irrelevant to your claim because what you wrote is not what your cited source says. There is also no time limit on editing, whether I do it now or in another year's time is irrelevant. Hzh (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Given in the source:
 * "That means the MDS analysis result supports the theory that the warriors were based on a real army. Actually, this inference is also consistent with the funeral tradition and culture around Qin Dynasty. At that time, people viewed the afterlife as an extension of worldly life. Thereby, tomb builders always pursued to duplicate all aspects of the real world in the netherworld, including everything they needed [...] Therefore, theoretically, it is more reasonable that each life-sized terracotta soldier was modeled on an actual person.”
 * Opening line of conclusion: “The striking realism of terracotta warriors has led to hypothesize or believe that they were based on real soldiers who served in the emperor's army” (Hu et al. 2022).

The point is plain, and is effortless enough to locate within the article to refrain from conjecturally framing the revision as "OR" and challenging editors under non-WP:AGF grounds of "making up claims." One of the co-authors of the article at issue, Xiuzhen Li, is the Senior Archaeologist of the Emperor Qin Shihuang's Mausoleum Site Museum - the questioning of its place as a RS (or questioning its own references, which is not a requirement of RS validity to begin with) is absurd, period.

I’ll note that 1) the degree of accessibility to a source cited *within* a RS is not a requirement of WP:RS. Even the access to RS themselves, which is not the case here, does not categorically invalidate its validity for citation in WP per WP:SOURCEACCESS, 2) I’m not quite sure what your closing sentence is implying but invoking a personal WP:DEADLINE mood alongside instructing others that "there is no reason to expand it” is skirting on WP:OWNERSHIP territory, to be frank. Sleath56 (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the difference between what you wrote and what the source wrote. The idea of full sized sculptural realism of a person was not found before the terracotta army in China, here the article suggests the army may be based on real people and that this is consistent with a funerary tradition, it doesn't say that idea of sculptural realism came from that funerary tradition. The idea could very well have come from somewhere else. The fact is that nothing like this was observed before Qin in China where the practice of burying figurines in tombs was already long present (the funerary tradition is certainly not exclusive to Qin), however, the figurines were always small and unrealistic representation of the person, what is done here is completely different. What you wrote is therefore OR.
 * When you look in the history of art, you can trace the development of a particular art form over a long time (you can see for example the influence on Greek statuary from an older Egyptian tradition, and how it changes from stiff kouros form into a more naturalistic representation), here you see nothing of the development, everything came out fully formed, which is extremely unusual. If you want to say that this is indeed what the article says, the claim would verge on the nationalistic POV propaganda of "the genius of Chinese people", and would explain why it cited obscure work rather than accepted reliable academic sources. But, whatever you think, it still doesn't really come out and state that.
 * The reason for not expanding this issue is precisely the WP:PROPORTION that you cited - . This is entirely a minor side issue when you look at the sources that discuss the terracotta army, and does not warrant a large paragraph. Hzh (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 * That actually is what the paper states precisely: that the idea of the statues’ realistic style is derived from the Qin funerary tradition that the emperor extended to his army as inspiration, modelling the statues after real-life soldiers, which the conclusion of the article, as cited previously, is hypothesized to be the cause of their "striking realism." Additionally, this is exactly also how it was formulated in the revision for this page:
 * "These findings have lent support to a hypothesis that the sculptural naturalism derives from a Qin funerary tradition to realistically duplicate possessions for the underworld, which in the case of the first emperor, extended to his soldiery."
 * As for everything else, I’m not sure if there’s some actual expectation for me to equivocate an editor’s OR to a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal like Heritage Science, co-written by the site’s senior archaeologist amongst others. Did you Ctrl+F the paper and find the proclamations you’ve been making somewhere within? That was rhetorical, given that I read through the whole paper for editorial due diligence of incorporating its thesis here while the repeated claims, which you finally dropped in the last response, that one of the most credentialed RS to befit this page is somehow not RS comes off like a backpedalling admission of a “well even if it says what you say, the RS is wrong because its not RS” approach of dismissing updates to the page out of hand.
 * Though at least we’re finally on the grounds of discussing the material content now instead of "RS credentials.” The paper did not synthesize its hypothesis on stylistic realism to any previous theories. None of those traces are mentioned in the paper so the conflation of this archaeological analysis with some OR perspective of art history is entirely irrelevant. Given that you cited WP:SCHOLARSHIP previously out of an impression that it applied to references within a RS, I recommend that you actually read through WP:OR. It’s not some random acronym to throw back at editors just because a line of argument you made was cautioned to be broaching OR.
 * WP:OR: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.
 * Unless there’s RS that you can present to support the synthesis of the “convergent art development is impossible" hypothesis you’re espousing with the recent material archaeological assessments made in the Hu et al. 2022 paper, as the literature does not do so despite your personal assertions that there must be a “connection," there is no editorial basis for those personal concerns you’ve presented in such grounds. It's bizarre to see an WP regular editor express such sentiments, but it should be said if needed that WP is WP:NOTABOUTYOU and the fixation on explaining your personal perception of the RS and what you find “extremely unusual" through conspiratorial terms as if the senior archaeologist co-author is pulling a fast one on you by citing and endorsing its reference material (which is how the formation of academic engagement and consensus in scholarship works by the way and on another note, the idea that any dissertion is verboten material for citation is wildly off the mark on how scholarship works) and as if you know “better” than one of the foremost scholars in the relevant field could not be less relevant to the editorial process here. Sleath56 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating your claim with no attempt the address what I said. I have no idea why you quote yourself in the discussion, when my complaint is exactly that the article does not say what you say. For example, on the subject of supporting a hypothesis, the article says "", that is not the same as "" that you wrote. You seem to have to have deleted a bunch of words (the theory that warriors were based on a real army, and that is the main theory of the article) and come up with is in effect your OR theory (sculptural naturalism being derived from a Qin funerary tradition). The source does not and cannot support your claim, it is therefore effectively unsourced. Per WP:OR
 * As repeatedly stated, the article does not say that sculptural naturalism derives from a funerary tradition. The words the article used, "conforms to", "in line with" and "consistent with" a funerary tradition do not equal "derives from" a funerary tradition. Note that the funerary tradition that existed was actually for making small figurines with no regard for realism, and the authors cannot demonstrate that there was any such tradition of making life-size realistic figures in China. The creators of terracotta army could in theory make thousand of such small figurines to represent the army to be consistent with their funerary tradition, but that is not what they did, and what they did was unprecedented in China.
 * At least I see that you concede on WP:PROPORTION says on minor issue, which this is. Hzh (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The entire passage, which really should have been unnecessary to cite in full as those invested in the points of its assessment as cited and abridged previously would presumably click the link and investigate the open-access text for themselves. I really don’t see the basis for the issue you’ve expressed of a difficulty in grasping the points of the paper, though the insinuation that the abridgment of the main premises ("You seem to have to have deleted a bunch of words”) was to hide some “the Klingons actually built it!” admission from the paper I wanted to pull the wool over is rather droll.
 * The full passage is even more direct in its meaning: The "striking realism” has been attributed to the statues being modelled off real soldiers. The inspiration of modelling them off real soldiers is due to a Qin tradition of duplicating possessions, which the emperor extended to his army so that he may protect himself per such funerary traditions, which also included weapons. This intent of replication under Qin era practice is corroborated by the report of Sima Qian that the tomb was meant to "replicate the real world”.
 * As for "At least I see that you concede...," good to know this editorial discussion have been conceptualized as a score game. On everything else, I’ve already addressed each of them, despite the assertion to the contrary, in previous responses which may still be referred to. I'll refrain from WP:BLUDing the discussion through endless rephrasing of already presented rebuttals. I'll add that my response on the matter of WP:PROPORTION has already been stated above.
 * Given that 1) your objections in the past responses have seemingly trudged through a carousel of tangents: ”The paper doesn’t say what you think it does.” -> "Even if it does, its references are not kosher.” -> “Even if it is a RS, there’s actually a big conspiracy afoot” -> “Even if there isn’t and everything checks out, it shouldn’t be included anyways due to WP:PROPORTION"; 2) your first line of appeal after having perceived to possess a valid means of objection is to kneejerk return to your expectation for "no reason to expand it,” rather than presenting genuine points of editorial order; 3) you admit there’s a need for the passage’s revision but it should be “done later” personally in perhaps “another year’s time,” I’d like to reiterate that my previous citation of WP:OWNERSHIP is not some pretextless non-AGF dig on your behalf, but a genuine note of attention based on the observations highlighted above.
 * As for the latest rendition of OR perceptions and uncited factoids inserted into this discussion, refer to the paragraph of my previous post above beginning with: "Unless there’s RS that you can present […]” Sleath56 (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Heavens, I think I have to consider that you are being deliberately obtuse and obdurate, keep saying the same thing but refusing to address the point I made, all the same time trying to bring up supposed rules and guidelines where the points I made are already in there (therefore suggesting that you haven't really read them), furthermore if WP:OWNERSHIP is an issue, I would have made the edit a long time ago and reverted your edit straightaway instead of discussing, can you accept that "wait and see" and discuss is a more appropriate response that quickly? Discussing is in fact the very point it makes.
 * I never disputed that the authors of the papers are suggesting the army may be based on real people, I'm disputing that it said sculptural naturalism is derived from a funerary tradition. When you see the authors keep using similar words like "conforms to", "in line with" and "consistent with", instead of "derived from", you can be sure that the authors did not want to venture into that territory.  And the direct quote from the paper on supporting a hypothesis is that it is about supporting the theory of the army being based on real people, rather than it being derived from a funerary tradition. You are in fact telling us that you know better than what the authors said.
 * The theory that the faces of the army may be based on real people could and should go elsewhere, for example in the part that mentions how there are at least ten basic moulds for the faces and then further adjusted by adding individual features. It doesn't belong to the discussion of the origin of sculptural realism, because the paper doesn't claim what you claimed it said (the paper is clearly avoiding making that claim by the words it used). You should try sticking to what the paper says instead of thinking that you know better than the authors. Hzh (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The theory that the faces of the army may be based on real people could and should go elsewhere, for example in the part that mentions how there are at least ten basic moulds for the faces and then further adjusted by adding individual features. It doesn't belong to the discussion of the origin of sculptural realism, because the paper doesn't claim what you claimed it said (the paper is clearly avoiding making that claim by the words it used). You should try sticking to what the paper says instead of thinking that you know better than the authors. Hzh (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

standing guard?
I heard à university lecture by Eugene Wang saying that the soldiers were not standing guard nor ready for combat, since not wearing helmets.

title: Talk:Terracotta Army


text:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sollog/archive1

Sollog
Not a bad article. I think that it could be a worthy featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. A highly controversial article that has been subject to massive vandalism attempts. Putting it on the front page will merely encourage these attempts. Plus Sollog doesn't need the publicity. Like it says on the talk page, "Do not feed the Trolls". DJ Clayworth 23:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If the trolls hate it it's hardly troll food. silsor 23:47, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * How is this actionable? This sounds like you are arguing that it should be on VfD! Also, FAs don't necessarily go onto the front page. I should also note that I put that troll notice up, but it only applies to the talk page, which I hardly want to have featured. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not think that that word means what you think it means. silsor 06:05, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Actionable" means that somebody could start legal action because of it. silsor 13:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Silsor, many people have been using this terminology on FAC for quite some time now. In the context of FAC, it means that you cannot action the objection that is dealt with. That is what I meant, and in this context it should be clear. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Object also. We don't need to give him any free advertising. --Sillydragon 23:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I think it looks pretty good, especially considering what kind of topic it is. I don't care about advertising or troll food or whatever. Everyking 00:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On second thought, it does seem kinda incomplete. When did Sollog first realize he was a prophet, or God, or whatever? Does he talk about some great revelation he received, or anything like that? Is there anything to be said about him pre-'95? Everyking 04:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An FA candidate should have wider import than a usenet newsgroup. Besides, I am loathe to give any more credence to tin foil hattery than absolutely necessary. If I had my way, this =would= be on VfD. Denni ☯ 00:51, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Please place this on VfD then. Your objection is not actionable. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with TBSDY here. Theoretically any article that is deemed legitimate (i.e., survives VfD) should have the potential to be featured. Everyking 02:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Clearly not of high enough quality. And don't disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Stability is one of the FA criteria, and you knew this would not meet that. - Taxman 03:16, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could I have specific objections please? Also, please don't assume bad faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hard to assume good faith when you nominate an article that has been the subject of such incredibly persistent total vandalism and profanities that it required several people to keep a constant watch on it and protect it for a total of at least a few days. That clearly violates the stability criteria and the uncontroversial also. Further violating the uncontroversial criteria is that the talk page requires such messages as "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed." and "This article contains information that is considered troll food, i.e. it is used by people with a lot of time on their hands to create discord". In addition the article is full of weasel words where information is not known or has not been researched. Especially egregious in that regard is the legal problems section. The only source for that section appears to be Altman (hard to claim him as an entirely unbiased source). Some more, even primary sources for the arrests and trial would be needed since those claims are of course specifically contradicted by people claiming to be Sollog supporters. - Taxman 20:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you saying I'm a deliberately disruptive editor? Thank you for the reasons why this is not good enough for a featured article, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not say you are a disruptive editor. You are clearly not in general. But for the reasons above, which I would have thought were obvious to you too, I feel that this nomination had no merit. There is a difference between not liking one example of your behavior, and thinking you are a disruptive editor. I consistently value your overall contributions, but didn't think this one was helpful. It is since clear that you did not intend harm by nominating this, but again, for the reason given, at the time it did not appear that the nomination was made solely because the article met all the FA criteria. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * No vote, but the only objection I've seen so far that is even somewhat actionable is Taxman's. That this is about a troll means nothing; if necessary, the article can easily be flagged as one to never be featured on the main page. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object that this character doesn't need further publicity, no matter how well-written the article might be. RickK 07:09, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not an actionable objection. Invalid. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, then. Object.  There is no picture of the subject, Sollog.  RickK 20:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well yes there is, a mugshot under the header "Legal problems". Still an invalid objection. --ZeroOne ( talk | @ ) 22:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Object: No details on his life pre-95, too many single-sentence paragraphs, seems to be randomly called Ennis or Sollog from sentence to sentence with no reason for preferring the name he has rejected and finds insulting, some lack of clarity in the writing (e.g In the sentence In early 1995, Sollog first came to public attention by buying large ads that promoted his e-books, prophecies, and religious views in several Philadelphia newspapers,, were the ads or his 'e-books, prophecies, and religious views' in these papers?) I see no reason why this article could not be featured if it ever becomes comprehensive and well-written enough. Filiocht 12:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Finally, some actionable objections! I think I perhaps should have placed this on peer review first. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment When did it become normal so say that because an objection is so funadmental it can't be fixed, we must ignore it? If there are good reasons not to make something an FAC then we should not make it an FAC, whether it's fixable or not. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ever since I've been editing Wikipedia. The FAC page states that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page)." - Ta bu shi da yu 22:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It came into play this summer or so primarily to avoid articles failing over objections that cannot be fixed such as the topic being objectionable or obscure. If there are good reasons for an article not to be featured, then it will fail other criteria. In this case, there are plenty of other issues with this article. See above. - Taxman 00:01, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. I had this argument with Denni over exploding whale. He was told by other editors and myself that his objection that it wasn't notable enough was not actionable and therefore invalid. The article became featured and hit the front page. I do appreciate knowing about the other objections, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's basically what I just said. - Taxman 16:54, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. A successful transformation of a vanity article into a well-written article, a triumph of NPOV over trolling, and a successful collaborative editing project in the face of constant vandalism. Gamaliel 16:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral. I feel that while the article seems to be decent, that's not the only criterion we should be using to decide if something should be a featured article. For the frontpage, I feel that we also need to consider how candicates reflect on the project. Some kinds of topics, such as perhaps Zoophilia, detract from the project's image, regardless of how well-written the article is. Others act as a magnet for trouble. I understand TBSDY's perspective that the only thing that should count is "Is the article good", but I disagree with it. Understand that I don't feel that the article itself should be deleted, I just feel that the front stage should have a higher standard than other articles, measured seperately and both by article quality point of view and topic quality point of view. --Improv 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We're just talking about featuring, not putting it on the front page. Everyking 17:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ack, I'm sorry. I got mixed up on which page I was editing. Changing to neutral. --Improv 20:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Support (reluctantly) only on the principle that the article is well-written, and we are trying to maintain NPOV on such subjects, even repugnant or silly ones. I have to state that I share the sentiment that he doesn't deserve any free advertising or promotion, though. Vaoverland 01:22, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object I agree with all of the objections Taxman brought up. --Clngre 05:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Bottoms Up Club

The Bottoms Up Club was a girlie bar in Hong Kong. The bar became notorious for its appearance in the 1974 James Bond film The Man with the Golden Gun. The interior of the club evoked the interior of the club as seen in the film.

History
The Club opened in the basement of Mohan's Building at 14 Hankow Road in Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, in March or May 1971. One of its early managers was Pat Sephton, a former Windmill model. A 1994 court ruling requested it to remove its naked-buttocks neon sign, and to have its naked dancers wear bras or negligees. The Tsim Sha Tsui location closed in April 2004. Rising rents were cited as possible reasons for the closure. The Club re-opened at the first floor of David House, 37–39 Lockhart Road in Wan Chai in May 2004, this time mainly as a sports bar, with one of the original bars being recreated in a back room.

In July 2009 the club closed down.

In popular culture
At the time of the film, the club was located in Tsim Sha Tsui, on the Kowloon side of Victoria Harbour. This gave rise to a movie blooper when Bond, played by Roger Moore, is picked up outside the club by British agents posing as police, and is told he is being taken to a police station on the Kowloon side (of Hong Kong Harbour), when he is in fact already there.

According to a former employee, while the film features footage of the exterior of the Club, the scenes inside the Club were actually filmed in a studio in the United Kingdom, where it had been recreated.

The club also appeared in the 1994 Wong Kar-wai movie Chungking Express. Takeshi Kaneshiro and Brigitte Lin have drinks there before going to a hotel room.

The club appears also in the book Zero Minus Ten by Raymond Benson (1997) where James Bond meets Sunni Pei (consume girl and striptease dancer), a member of the Hong Kong mafia "The Triads".

title: Bottoms Up Club


text: Template:NYCS Brighton local

title: Template:NYCS Brighton local


text:
Flag House Courts

Flag House Courts was a public housing project built in 1955 in Baltimore, Maryland, comprising three 12-story buildings and multiple low-rise units. It had recreational facilities with bingo and dances, a swimming pool, and a basketball court. However, the complex had problems from its opening. Elevators often broke down, trapping riders for hours. Residents were forced to run fans, even in winter, because a faulty heating system made the buildings unbearably hot. There were also the problems of crime and drug dealing. By the late 1960s, gunshots at the complex were common, and elevators and stairwells reeked of urine. Residents often threw objects out of windows, including Christmas trees. Vacant apartments were turned into drug hangouts, and stairwells became violent crime areas.

In 1993, the projects were renovated slightly, but problems continued. They closed in 1998 and 1999 and were imploded on February 10, 2001.

In popular culture

 * In an episode of The Wire, Ellis Carver mentions growing up in the Flag House Projects.

title: Flag House Courts