text:
List of Social Security legislation (United States)

 * 1935 - Social Security Act,
 * 1939 - Social Security Amendments of 1939,
 * 1942 - Revenue Act of 1942,
 * 1943 -
 * 1943 - Revenue Act of 1943,
 * 1945 - Federal Insurance Contributions Act,
 * 1945 - Revenue Act of 1945,
 * 1946 - Social Security Amendments of 1946,
 * 1947 - Social Security Amendments of 1947,
 * 1948 - Provision for Exclusion of Certain Newspaper and Magazine Vendors from Social Security Coverage,
 * 1948 - Provision to Maintain Status Quo Concept of Employee,
 * 1950 - Social Security Amendments of 1950,
 * 1952 - Social Security Amendments of 1952,
 * 1954 - Social Security Amendments of 1954,
 * 1956 - Social Security Amendments of 1956,
 * 1958 - Social Security Amendments of 1958,
 * 1960 - Social Security Amendments of 1960,
 * 1961 - Social Security Amendments of 1961,
 * 1965 - Social Security Amendments of 1965,
 * 1966 - Tax Adjustment Act of 1966,
 * 1967 - Social Security Act Amendments,
 * 1969 - Tax Reform Act of 1969,
 * 1971 - Social Security Amendments,
 * 1972 - Social Security Amendments,
 * 1972 - Social Security Amendments of 1972 (Supplemental Security Income),
 * 1973 - Social Security Benefits Increase,
 * 1977 - Social Security Amendments of 1977,
 * 1980 - Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980,
 * 1980 - Reallocation of Social Security Taxes Between OASI and DI Trust Funds,
 * 1980 - Retirement Test Amendments,
 * 1981 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981,
 * 1981 - Social Security Amendments of 1981,
 * 1983 - Internal Revenue Code of 1954 and Social Security Act, amendments.
 * This document describes minor changes: Social Security Tax rates on Virgin Islands income, Social Security Disability Changes (Benefits during Appeal, Periodic Reviews, Reconsiderations), and Offsets related to public pensions.
 * 1983 - Social Security Amendments of 1983,
 * This document describes the massive 1983 changes affecting the financing of the Social Security system.
 * 1984 - Social Security Disability Benefits Reform Act of 1984,
 * 1985 - Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act,
 * 1986 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986,
 * 1987 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987,
 * 1988 - Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988,
 * 1989 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989,
 * 1990 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990,
 * 1993 - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,
 * 1994 - Social Security Administrative Reform Act,
 * 1994 - Social Security Domestic Reform Act,
 * 1996 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 1996,
 * 1999 - Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act,
 * 2000 - Senior Citizens' Right to Work Act of 2000,


text:
Talk:Geeta Zutshi

AfD
This article was proposed for deletion Feb. 2005. Votes for deletion/Geeta Zutshi Joyous 16:12, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geeta Zutshi. 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/20121017100845/http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/zu/geeta-zutshi-1.html to http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/athletes/zu/geeta-zutshi-1.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) 20:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geeta Zutshi. 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/20050204194852/http://www.tata.com/0_careers/our_people/20040809_pal.htm to http://www.tata.com/0_careers/our_people/20040809_pal.htm

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) 01:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Geeta Zutshi


text:
Pop 100

The Pop 100 was a songs chart that debuted in February 2005 and was released weekly by Billboard magazine in the United States until its discontinuation in 2009. It ranked songs based on airplay on Mainstream Top 40 radio stations, singles sales and digital downloads.

History
The Pop 100 was conceived by Michael Ellis and was first published in the Billboard issue of February 12, 2005. It was created to focus "on the songs with the greatest mainstream appeal, while the Hot 100 will be driven by the songs with the highest song rotations," according to Billboard chart editor Geoff Mayfield. In a press release about the new chart, he also stated that "the Pop 100's construction also makes sense when you notice the high correlation between the songs with the most top 40 plays and the best selling digital tracks."

The Pop 100 used only Mainstream radio impressions data, derived from the Pop 100 Airplay chart. Its calculation also considered digital and physical sales. When the Pop 100 was first published, the Hot 100 changed its format as well. Digital downloads were incorporated into the equation which tabulates a song's rank on the chart. Prior to this, only radio airplay and physical singles sales were used to determine positions.

Pop 100 Airplay
The Pop 100 Airplay chart was created alongside the Pop 100. It measured airplay over top 40 radio stations and was the successor to Top 40 Tracks, the Billboard chart that formerly tracked airplay of those stations after the Hot 100 panel was expanded to include a broader range of stations.

Like the Mainstream Top 40, the Pop 100 Airplay also measured airplay of songs on mainstream radio stations playing pop-oriented music, but the Pop 100 Airplay (like the Hot 100 Airplay) measured airplay based on statistical audience impressions, while the Mainstream Top 40 uses the number of total detections (spins).

Discontinuation
On June 10, 2009, the Pop 100 was discontinued by Billboard: "In place of the chart, which launched in 2005 and more recently had more mirrored the Hot 100 in light of heightened digital sales, the airplay-only plays-based Mainstream Top 40 survey, which began in 1992, will track the progress of songs across U.S. Top 40 radio." Since digital sales have become a bigger factor in the compilation of the Hot 100, the dominance of R&B and hip hop on that chart has reduced, which in large part had rendered the Pop 100 redundant. The Pop 100 continued to be published on billboard.biz until June 26, 2010.

List of Pop 100 number-one singles
This is a complete list of the songs that reached number one on the Pop 100 chart from its inception in February 2005 through it discontinuation in June 2009. Its airplay points were compiled from electronic monitoring of approximately 115 mainstream Top 40 stations by Nielsen Broadcast Data Systems.

The chart debuted in the issue dated February 12, 2005, with the first number one being "1, 2 Step" by Ciara featuring Missy Elliott. The number-one song on the final chart in the issue dated June 27, 2009, was "Boom Boom Pow" by The Black Eyed Peas.

 * ↓↑ - indicates song's run at number one was non-consecutive

title: Pop 100


text:
Talk:Comparison of wiki software/Archive 1

Table format
This table is really hard to read. Can someone rotate it 90 degrees? 171.67.73.10 22:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Gotta agree that it's hard to read, it forces you to page up each time you want to try to figure out whether some software distribution has feature X.
 * I inserted the column of headings every 5-6 software descriptions to address this concern -- Trödel 12:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I got to say that it is still ridiculously big. Is there any other option to make it easier to compare different wiki software without annoying lots of scrolling? 71.250.35.162 21:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree, the table format is totally wrong... The items to compare should be listed vertically and the properties horizontally. A table with lots of entries expands vertically, a very detailed table expands horizontally, that's just the way tables are meant... not to mention the loss of space because some fields have whole sentences in a very narrow but high cell. --194.109.234.123 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, different wikis should be on the x-axis, features should be on the y-axis. In addition, stuff like webserver required is already on the table above, and required software could be moved to the table above. SavantEdge 10:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for layout and organization -Michael 68.51.39.136 08:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC) ...
 * (bump) anyone willing to go through the 90° rotation for the second table? I know it's a lot of work but it would be sooo useful! The proposal below looks sensible to me --DarTar 09:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison table
Basic general information about the distributions: creator/company, license/price etc.

Other Notable features
-Michael 68.51.39.136 21:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article says: 'Basic general information about the distributions: creator/company, license/price etc. (Microsoft Excel or OpenOffice.org Calc does a great job rendering this table useful)'. So, how do you do this?

- Don.209.217.75.155 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by Comparison of Linux distributions
Inspired by Comparison of Linux distributions, this is meant to evolve into a sane replacement for the list found in Wiki software and should also absorb Wiki software using MySQL (why does that page exist?).

Some of these are content management systems. That will definitely need to be figured out.. what CMS' qualify as wikis? I would say that it's the internal markup language and link handling. I'll have to go through the List of content management systems to see what ought to be copied into this comparison list.

-- Suggestions

I am interested in hearing ideas on organizing this effectively. What categories of information would be good to display? Are there any other items of comparison which should be added? Comment freely.

I transposed the first table. It is now harder to edit, but much, much easier to read. This page is hopeless compared to the chart at splitbrain, but it is a start. I would suggest we put everthing in one big table to make comparison easier.

-- Sy / (talk)

This page, in my opinion, is a very good idea, yet desperately needs more data. Showing 4 wikis and claiming that the table is "The Comparison" is also rather dangerous, as it suggests these are The Best Ones, and that there are nearly no other - while I doubt the first statement, and the latter is absolutely false. I wanted to move the 'stub' mark to the beginning of the page, only I saw that there were many edits recently, so I hope it quickly gets better.

My $.02 said --Akavel 15:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. It was meant to be very roughly stub-like, and a beginning tool to be added as I or others explored other wikis. Wikis tend to not present their information cleanly enough to allow for really easy comparison, so this table is really leaning on the research and experience of others. -- Sy / (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Inline importing / Inline exporting
What do you mean by that terms. I do not undrstand them. They need more explanation, please :) --213.140.17.106 13:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. There are no wiki engines listed that support it, and one listed as ?.  Does this refer to inline RSS importing? If so, what is meant by inline exporting?  -- Josquin 03:30, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ack, I totally forget why I put those there. I think I was meaning to describe the ability to import/export content directly using the wiki interface.  So a wiki which can dynamically generate a PDF would qualify.  Still, it's WAY too vague.. so I'm going to remove that.  -- Sy / (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Other possible features

 * Report generation and user-specified templating/css etc
 * Markup languages supported
 * Show an example of the wiki syntax
 * grouping syntax "comptible" wikis
 * how about a [Comparison of wiki-hosting sites]? i only know of wikispaces.org and i like it, but since i'm so new to this, i don't really know what features i should really be looking for or what exactly is the best one. i think that could be helpful. maybe it should be a whole new entry? i don't know, but this seemed the most rational place to put a comparison idea.
 * This wouldn't be the right page to start this, and I'm not evven sure that this is appropriate for Wikipedia at all. I do my hosting at home, so I only have peripheral experience.  Why don't you make a little list in this talk page or your user page and I'll see if I can work with it to help you out. -- Sy / (talk)

 * And how about listing wether or not it will run in PHP Safe-mode (for PHP based wiki software). Some hosts (Sourceforge?) only allows safe-mode.
 * Jouke 13:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

 * List whether root access is required for installation, or answer the question: How hard it is to install in an ISP hosted environment (without root access)? -- DBooth 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Add a "Hide Column" link to each column? I don't know how difficult this would be with JavaScript or CSS (or whether it would even be permitted on wikipedia), but one difficulty in trying to read the table is that it is too wide to be able to see the first column, which lists the comparison axes.  If this feature is feasible to implement, perhaps column might collapse into a single "+" link, for re-expansion. -- DBooth 04:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki installation
WikiEngineComparison at MoinMoinWiki lists MediaWiki installation as easy, but it is listed as Difficult here. Which is it? --Pmsyyz 15:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well i cant really see a wiki stating that their own wiki software is difficult to install, also since the author probably use MM i'm sure they think it is very easy to install. I would suspect that it was listed here as difficult because it requires python to be installed and since in most cases it is not it may be taking into account it is using a language that isnt terribly common for web applications. To be perfectly honest from browsing through the installation tar.gz i would rate it as very hard to install. Although it does come with an install script it requires a lot of other work ( added special folders outside the html folder for the database, make sure the chmods are right, etc. )--2mcmGespräch 21:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's easy, but the question is POV. I don't see how it can be justified in an encyclopedia article. Angela. 20:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Integration
MediaWiki can integrate with phpbb via a plugin, other wikis like DokuWiki require hacking source. Other wikis don't support integration at all. This is a make/break decision for some sites, it would be useful to have this info in the table.

OddMuse/UseMod
Okay, am I blind (damn you, LASIK procedure!) or are there no entries for these two major types of wiki software here? I'm trying to figure out whether/how to improve this list w/o stepping on toes... nae'blis (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, there aren't. I was wondering that myself. —User:ACupOfCoffee @ 00:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Be bold, and add it yourself! It's the WikiWay!

"Ease of use"
I am not a computer programmer. All of these "easy" programs to install are almost impossible to install. That is why I added a footnote that the "ease of installation" is terribly misleading.

Wiki programs are obviously still in their infancy, because only computer programers can understand how to use them. Travb 00:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I read your link for the installation instructions for istwiki. They amounted to downloading the file and unzipping it to a specific directory.  what could be easier? -lethe talk 09:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It would be worth noting that these comparisons ("easy", etc) are in relation to other server-side software products, and not to general desktop applications. Manning 19:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Demo section
I thought I'd add this as I'd like to see a simple link to a plain demo of each wiki software.

Please add more direct links to a demo (preferably on the official site of the wiki software)

cheers Treelovinhippie 02:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * A (pretty sparse) demo section has been added some time after this note. Antonrojo 21:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice section
The Advice section mentions that a point of consideration might be wether pages are stored as (plain) text files, or in a database (ie MySQL), but this is not mentioned in the comparisson table! Jouke 12:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Link Format
Hi. I think it would be useful to have link format discussed in the table. I personally find CamelCase rather yucky, so I wouldn't want to install a wiki that used that for its links. (In fact, since wikipedia is almost certainly by far the biggest wiki on the net, I imagine that many people would be expecting a format similar to mediawiki's - anything else could be confusing...) Jamse 17:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Page History
I just noticed that page history isn't listed in the features table. This seems like a key feature. Also, I think the 'WikiMatrix' link which includes a nice wizard for selecting a wiki should feature more prominatly. The table on this page is quite extensive and while helpful it can be hard to do direct comparisions. Antonrojo 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki standards
I don't know if anybody is tending this page, but a big question I have about the software is whether there are any standards any of the groups are trying to work toward for page storage format. Also I would like to see whether the software has a corporation, foundation, partnership, or other stabilizing cooperative effort behind its future. Without asking anybody to immediately add this info to the article, could I discuss these issues with anybody knowledgeable here? Thanks. Tom Haws 18:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Math support
Could someone please add how and ahow much these wiki's support writing of mathematical equations? This would be a valuable information to have. Thank you!

WYSIWYG
WikiEdit is not WYSIWYG - it is buttons that do the wiki edit markup. Benjaminhill 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

wysiwyg;

wYSIWYG

What You See Is What You Get;

what you see is what you get.

hopiakuta 01:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

DokuWiki isn't WYSIWYG either. It's listed as 'yes; quickbuttons', but the buttons just help you enter code - while you're editing, the page is displayed as markup, not as the final product. Overall, it looks like the info in the WYSIWYG column isn't entirely accurate - someone needs to check the entries, but that's a hell of a large job!--202.55.158.11 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

 * WikiEdit, quickbuttons and the like are usually called editor toolbars, a concept totally different from WYSIWYG. Check out wikimatrix for a comparison table of wiki engines with WYSIWYG vs. toolbar support (these features are listed in the Usability section of the feature table of each engine). --DarTar (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible software to add to the list

 * TiddlyWiki. It's easy to use and instantaneous.  Is it appropriate for this list of software?  --A vivid dreamer 11:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Pbwiki. Fully hosted.  Limited functions.  --216.132.47.20 13:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ProjectForum. One of relatively few cross-platform wikis that are dependency free and distributed as a fully self-contained application.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.230.17 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need suggestion for Wiki selection
Hi, I am trying to choose a wiki for a small user group. I am getting really confused reading all the artilces in discussions posted on different websites. Here are my basic requirements. It will be great if anyone could suggest one.

Usre group: -
 * 1) About 20 – 25 users – very savvy, smart, and busy people but not very technically inclined
 * 2) So I want to have a very easy to use editor
 * 3) Will not have dedicated admin so need easy installation and maintenance. (don’t want to go for hosted service because of sensitive content)

Wiki Features: -

 * 1) Must supports large attachments (presentations and educational videos)
 * 2) Must be easily searchable, hopefully to the attachment level
 * 3) Should not have anonymous read access.
 * 4) It will be great if I could integrate it with the user authorization system my university offers
 * 5) It will be great if users could export & import pages from word and not have to use the wiki editing tags
 * 6) I am not sure whether I will have a unix or windows server. Will the choice of server maker a difference in installation and performance?

Thanks again --Varij 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)varij

Platform neutrality
I'm a little confused as to why Windows is singled out. I'm doing some research with a coworker (I use Mac and Windows and she is currently experimenting with Ubuntu) and found this comparison chart fairly helpful except for the "Runs on Windows" section. We need to know if these wikis will run on several different platforms as well as windows. Maybe the category should just be "Platform" and then list all the OS's that the wikis can operate under.

 * I renamed the column from "Runs on Windows" to "Platform" and replaced "Yes" with "Windows & others" on each item. TODO: Those with specific info please indicate which packages also run on Linux, Mac, etc. (Renamed this section in the same spirit. :-) ) --71.181.46.151 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the data in "Platform" column is unsatisafactory. What does mean "No"? _Vi 22:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It's an artifact from the heading name change -- corrected. Please feel free to research which platforms those wikis run on and add it to the table. --71.181.46.151 21:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

EditMe ?
This is comparison of wiki software (the software that you can install on your server), not comparison of hosted services - so why EditMe is in the list?

MediaWiki does not *need* Apache/IIS
Web-server required: Apache or IIS with PHP 5.0+

that's just not true.. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Installing_MediaWiki_with_Lighttpd

I don't see why it would need any specific server; it just needs PHP and MySQL, right? rewriting URLs is not compulsory.

And, based on Wikipedia, it supports searches.

wysiwyg;

wYSIWYG

What You See Is What You Get;

what you see is what you get.

hopiakuta 01:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

GetWiki
GetWiki should be included on the list for comparison. --165.230.46.150 19:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Installed base (or relative popularity)
I often go to Wikipedia to see what software options I have to chose from. It would be very nice to be able to discern the most-used programs.

I usually want to chose a major program and not a "fly by night" program that will be gone in a few months.

Thanks for considering this! --Calan 06:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Popular wiki engine
I'd like to know what's the most popular wiki engine running on Windows/IIS platform in terms of installation base? Mahanchian 12:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ZWiki should be Zwiki
The mis-capitalizing of ZWiki makes the link to Zwiki not work. Should there be a ZWiki topic that points to Zwiki or should only this topic be fixed?

CoWiki is dead
as of December 13, 2006. Someone want to make the relevant change who knows more about the appropriate formatting for this page? [unsigned]

It was the reason I made this page in the first place, but I think it ought to be removed entirely, to help reduce the noise of this page. -- Sy / (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Is MediaWiki the best?
Is MediaWiki the best? [unsigned]

The wikipedia does not form opinions, and talk pages are for discussing the articles, not for forum-style chatting. -- Sy / (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where can I find a free Mediawiki host?
Where can I find a free website host which uses Mediawiki? I've got a PBWiki, but I want one which uses Mediawiki. Long story. I don't want to do all the uploading and stuff. I just like the look and feel of Wikipedia in general, so I want to use this. Thanks! 77.98.109.114 10:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ZWiki
Why does ZWiki say "Python (included with most Zope installs)". Isn't Zope written in Python? How is it possible to have Zope without Python?

Adding new entry for a new wiki product
How do I go about adding in an entry for Jive Software's Clearspace product? Barrytallis 18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my comment to "see talk". Thought there was a description here already.
 * The product (or company creating the product) should already have it's own article, demonstrating it's notability. --Ronz 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

PBwiki
Hi! PBwiki is the largest WikiFarm, with over 200,000 unique wikis registered. I was surprised to see that neither PBwiki nor WetPaint (the second largest) were represented in this list, but entries like JotSpot, a now semi-defunct WikiFarm (with broken links) and Central Desktop (a site with far fewer users than WetPaint or PBwiki according to Alexa and Compete.com) is featured prominently. (DISCLAIMER - I am the CEO of PBwiki.) Dweekly 20:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

 * (bump) Dweekly 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some sources to verify what you're saying, as well as provide the information necessary for entry into the table? --Ronz 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Here is a list of our public wikis, which are about a third of the wikis hosted on our service . Here is an Alexa graph showing PBwiki and Wetpaint in the Top 10,000 websites. . I'd be happy to help fill out the info in the table, which should be simple to do. (We use PHP & MySQL.) Dweekly 09:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkfarm
Per WP:EL and WP:NOT, the home page and demo columns should be removed. Looks like there are many more inappropriate external links in the Comparison Table which should be removed as well. --Ronz 20:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The two columns are removed from the first table. Looks like some of the links in the Comparison Table are there as footnotes. --Ronz 15:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The new "Creator" column restored many of the links that I previously removed, and attracted many more. I've removed the links per above. Looks like there could be additional cleanup work on the linking here and there still. --Ronz 18:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorting by dates is broken
I haven't looked at the JS code used to sort the table by column, but sorting by release date doesn't work. I wonder if this depends on dates being formatted as links. Any ideas how to fix this? --DarTar 09:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Compatibility/interoperability (Cross-wiki support)
Are there any programs that convert databases between any of the formats, or are you pretty much stuck copying and pasting stuff by hand if you decide to switch? --68.44.13.236 16:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I added a column in the Feature2 table for this. --71.181.46.151 23:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Should that column be renamed to "Markup Language" and list the supported markup languages for each? Also, see Comparison of lightweight markup languages --71.181.46.151 00:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What does a blank table cell mean?
For example, in the Target Audience table, in the MediaWiki row, there is a blank cell in the Education column. Why wouldn't mediawiki be suitable for a wiki aimed at an audience in an education setting?139.133.7.37 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ease of installation - Major POV problem
This really needs to be addressed. This is like a text-book definition of a POV and/or OR violation. Is there some kind of objective measure we can replace the coloum with? Or, can we find a reliable source to cite? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

List inclusion criteria
I propose all entries that do not have their own article be removed per WP:LIST, at least until we come up with better list inclusion criteria. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

authors: ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ


text:
Talk:Helen Gandy

older comments
This article was proposed for deletion Feb. 2005. Votes for deletion/Helen Gandy Joyous 16:17, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

There is a picture of her in the article "Secretary Says she Destroyed...". The proquest copy is too poor to use though.

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a picture: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/05/31/PH2005053101008.html   PedanticallySpeaking 17:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

And here's her mother:  PedanticallySpeaking 17:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at her photo she is not a terribly bas looking woman, even in 1940 (whe she was middle aged). It is supprising that her and Hoover never had any type of relationship. William.

In the movie she is good looking and a relationship with Hover was shown as dating. As the article implies, she may have been married to her job.

This article has been vandalized!
The Helen Gandy hyperlink leads to a vandalized page with an offensive misogynisitic message.--Pinko1977 06:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It was just vandalized again, 10:33. Looks on the history page like it has been under assult all night. Maybe the dead hand of Hoover continues to act on this isse... :) WayeMason 10:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalism of main page FAs is quite common. This one looks no worse off than any others. →Raul654 16:52, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Would that it was a FBI plot rather than simple human nature... sigh. WayeMason 18:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So What About The Hoover Files?
So the files that Gandy destroyed - anyone have any guesses as to content? Brasswatchman August 13, 2005. 7:21 PM EST.
 * Um, Hoover was the head of the FBI for 50 years, during which time it had basically unchecked power. It's widely acknowledged, however never proven,that he had all the dirt on everybody, which is why everyone went out of their way to be very, very nice to him. In fact much about Hoover is speculation, other than first hand accounts of those that were within the FBI and had actual contact with him. →Raul654 00:08, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Middle name
What is the source of her middle name? And is that spelling right. Cf William Wilberforce. 66.213.119.98 15:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC) (aka User:PedanticallySpeaking)

Removed Gandy's mother's portrait
Was looking at well-done Eakins oil portrait, then saw the caption: it's Gandy's mother. Unless Gandy herself had some relation to the artist, or the mother's being with the artist had some effect on Gandy, it really makes no sense to have an oil portrait of the mother in an article about the daughter. Seems to me like a clear case of WP:COATRACK. That is: it's true, but it's not relevant.--Petzl (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Why I included primary sources
1. Gandy is of public interest enough to have been portrayed in multiple movies.

2. Census forms are easily understandable by observant members of the public. So are death certificates. In presenting these, I'm not proposing a speculation, interpretation or thesis. They describe Gandy as head of household in 1940 and 1950 and Morrow is described as "partner." Morrow's residence before the nursing home is the same address listed in the 1950 census. Gandy moved to Florida the year Morrow died. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Helen Gandy


text:
Talk:Charles Emmanuel IV

Untitled
Do you have a source for your claims as to the proper titles in use here? "Prince of Piedmont" is normally the title of the heir-apparent, not of the heir-apparent to the heir-apparent, and my understanding was that "Duke of Savoy" was not used as a courtesy title for heirs. But I'm not completely sure. john k 16:19, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In the case of the titles used by the heirs apparent to the head of the house of Savoy, there are no fixed rules. There are numerous sources which show that Victor Amadeus (III) was styled "Duke of Savoy" until the death of his father King Charles Emanuel III in 1773, and that Charles Emanuel (IV) was styled "Prince of Piedmont" from his birth:

 * In English: the Court and City Register (1759), and the Gentleman's and Citizen's Almanack (1769 and 1770).

 * In French: the Almanach royal (1757, 1758, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772).

 * In Italian: Giovanni Carbonelli, Benedetto XIV al battesimo di Carlo Emanuele IV di Savoia (Torino: R. Streglio, 1906).

 * I have found only one work which calls Victor Amadeus (III) "Prince of Piedmont" during the lifetime of his father (instead of "Duke of Savoy"); this is A Companion to the Almanack (Jeffreys, 1753). Noel S. McFerran

Stuart claim.
Were there people who claimed the "Stuartship" because Charles Emmanuel failed to be active in this cause? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

4th Sardinia???
No, 4th of Savoy! This is a basic historical error. Revolution Yes (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

 * This is no different from the fact that there has never before been a Charles who held the title "King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". In spite of this someone currently calls himself "Charles III". Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

 * We've Philip II through VI of Spain, when in fact technically, it should've been Philip I through V. As for the UK? We have William IV, Edward VII, Edward VIII & Elizabeth II, when technically it should've been William I, Edward I, Edward II & Elizabeth I. Then there's the four Italian monarchs. There's other examples, but ya get the point. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Emmanuel IV


text:
D. P. Tripathi

Devi Prasad Tripathi (29 November 1952 – 2 January 2020) was an Indian politician and General Secretary of the Nationalist Congress Party of India.

Early life
Devi Prasad Tripathi was born in Sultanpur Uttar Pradesh. As a student, Tripathi was president of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students' Union, and later taught at Allahabad University as a professor of politics.

Career
He was also the editor of the quarterly journal Think India. He spoke Indian and several foreign languages, and lectured in a number of foreign universities.

Having become involved in politics at the age of sixteen, Tripathi became one of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's aides. He left the Congress Party, however, over his opposition to Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Party, becoming Prime Minister (because of her foreign origin). He joined the Nationalist Congress Party in 1999, and reached the position of its General Secretary and chief spokesman. He was responsible for negotiating over seat-sharing in Maharashtra.

title: D. P. Tripathi


text: Talk:Fleet admiral (United States)

title: Talk:Fleet admiral (United States)


text:
B. J. Nilsen

Benny Jonas Nilsen (born 1975), alias BJ Nilsen, BJNilsen, and Hazard, is a Swedish sound artist based in Amsterdam.

His work primarily focuses on the sounds of nature and how they affect humans. Recent work has explored the urban acoustic realm and industrial geography in the Arctic region of Norway and Russia. His original scores and soundtracks have been used in theatre, dance performances and film. He and Jóhann Jóhannsson did the soundtrack for I Am Here.

Partial discography

 * 1991 - This Crying Age (Cold Meat Industry)
 * 1992 - Spindrift (Cold Meat Industry)
 * 1996 - Lech (Malignant Records)
 * 1999 - North (Ash International)
 * 2000 - Wood c/w Bridge/Field (Ash International)
 * 2001 - Wind in collaboration with Chris Watson (Ash International)
 * 2003 - Land (Touch)
 * 2004 - Live at Konzerthaus, Vienna (06_12_03 - (Touch)
 * 2005 - Fade to White (Touch)
 * 2005 - Víkinga Brennivín in collaboration with Stilluppsteypa (Helen Scarsdale Agency)
 * 2006 - "Sov Gott" appears on a split 12" with Milan Sandbleistift (Licht-Ung)
 * 2006 - Drykkjuvísur Ohljódanna in collaboration with Stilluppsteypa (Helen Scarsdale Agency)
 * 2007 - The Short Night (Touch)
 * 2007 - Second Childhood in collaboration with Hildur Gudnadóttir an Stilluppsteypa (Quecksilber)
 * 2007 - 22' 22" in collaboration with Z'ev (iDEAL Recordings)
 * 2008 - Passing Out in collaboration with Stilluppsteypa (Helen Scarsdale Agency)
 * 2009 - Man From Deep River in collaboration with Stilluppsteypa (Editions Mego)
 * 2010 - The Invisible City (Touch)
 * 2010 - Draught #1 cassette (Ash International)
 * 2010 - Space Finale with Stilluppsteypa on cassette & double LP (Editions Mego)
 * 2013 - "Nijmegen Pulse" with Alan Courtis. (CD, Album, Ltd - (Korm Plastics)
 * 2013 - "Eye Of The Microphone" (Touch)
 * 2014 - "Release The DATs" (The Wormhole)
 * 2015 - "I am here" with Jóhann Jóhannsson / Ash 11.1
 * 2015 - "unearthed" USB card, Images by Karl Lemieux / Dark Ecology/Sonic Acts
 * 2017 - "Terroir" 3"CD (Ferns Recordings)

title: B. J. Nilsen


text:
Karnak (comics)

Karnak is a superhero appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. He was created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and debuted in Fantastic Four (vol. 1) #45 (1965) along with other members of the Inhuman Royal Family.

The character Karnak Mander-Azur was never exposed to the Terrigen Mists, so he never developed additional powers like other Inhumans, but he is a martial artist who can find the weakness in anything and then use his training and strength to exploit it. Although the Jack Kirby Collector described him as "a philosophical karate expert with nominal personality" in 2004, subsequent writers have made use of his skill for puzzle-solving and strategic-planning in Inhumans' stories, leading to him being given his first solo series in 2015.

Karnak made his live-action debut in the 2017 Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) television series Inhumans, portrayed by Ken Leung.

Publication history
Karnak first appeared in Fantastic Four #45, and was created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, as part of their run on the title that helped lay the foundations for the Marvel Universe.

As a core member of the Inhumans, he has appeared in the group's own series over the years, including the 1998 Inhumans twelve-issue limited series by Paul Jenkins and Jae Lee, the Silent War mini-series by David Hine and Frazer Irving in 2007, and Secret Invasion: Inhumans in the following year.

Karnak is the narrator of Inhumanity #1 (February 2014) because his abilities gave writer Matt Fraction a way to frame the story:

"I needed somebody who could put puzzles together. He sees the flaws in things. I needed the rest of the cast to put together what the hell Black Bolt and Maximus were up to. It's a way for everyone to puzzle it out with Karnak as he's putting it together. It's a way we can get into the story that's informative but sort of backwards."

Although he commits suicide at the end of that issue, he appears in the cliffhanger of Inhuman #13 (May 2015) saying he had found a weakness in the afterlife. This allowed writer Charles Soule to bring the character back, and he explained Karnak's importance:

"Karnak is just such a unique, weird (in a good way) character. His power is the ability to see weakness and stress points in anything around him, which he then exploits either physically through his amazing kung fu-esque fighting skills, or mentally/strategically in his role as one of Queen Medusa's chief counselors. He tends to have a fascinating perspective on events, and adding his voice back into the mix of the 'Inhuman' cast will open up some great new possibilities."

Karnak will get his first eponymous series as part of the All-New, All-Different Marvel line emerging from 2015's "Secret Wars" storyline and the first issue of his series will feature a monster variant cover of Rommbu from Tales to Astonish #19 drawn by Eric Powell. Karnak is part of a wider push the Inhumans are getting across Marvel's media output - on television (in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), in film (with the upcoming Inhumans) and in print (with the A-N, A-DM relaunch including the team books All-New Inhumans and Uncanny Inhumans, alongside the other solo titles Ms. Marvel vol. 4 and Moon Girl and Devil Dinosaur). Editor-in-Chief Axel Alonso has said that the specific series came about because "Nick Lowe was looking to build the Inhumans line with a solo book or two and suggested Karnak as a character to spotlight. I didn't need to be sold on Karnak, who's far and away my favorite Inhuman". They picked Warren Ellis to write the title because of his earlier stints at Marvel reworking their characters. Ellis, who is joined by Gerardo Zaffino on art duties, described what drew him to the character:

"he’s not an Inhuman. He never took the mutagenic Terrigen mists like the other Inhumans. He’s a dementedly intense philosopher who can see the flaw in anything—objects, systems, ideas, people—and strike that flaw in order to destroy it.

...

His parents refused to allow him to become an Inhuman, and instead he studied at the Tower of Wisdom until his natural powers of perception became so phenomenally strong that he could annihilate anything by touching it. He is the Inhuman who made himself inhuman by sheer force of will. He extends the work of the Tower of Wisdom by both teaching and extending aid to people damaged (as he sees it) by the Terrigen mists that cause Inhumanity. It was all right there. In this new Marvel Universe situation, where all kinds of people have been mutated by Terrigen, there’s an endless number of plot launches there."

With regard to the inspiration behind Karnak's new form, Ellis states:

"I am still writing KARNAK, and am therefore immersed in the viewpoint of various strains of speculative realism, tending towards the nihilistic frames of Peter Sjostedt-H and Eugene Thacker..."

Fictional character biography
Karnak is a member of the Inhuman race, one of those who form the Inhuman Royal Family, born on the island of Attilan. Cousin of Black Bolt, king of the Inhumans, Karnak has the ability to find the weak point in any person, plan, or object. Thus, he is usually used as planner by the Inhumans. He also serves as a priest and philosopher to the Inhumans.

He is the brother of Triton, who endured Terrigenesis before he did. However, Triton's Terrigenesis was so extreme that his parents, Mander and Azur, begged that Karnak not have to endure the procedure. Instead, he was sent to a monastery, where he learned martial arts.

He is usually attended by his relatives, Gorgon and Triton. He has taken part in most of the Inhumans' adventures, such as the Kree-Skrull War, and the many moves of the Inhuman city of Attilan.

Karnak and the Royal Family encounter Maximus' creation, the Trikon, and are driven from Attilan's Great Refuge in exile.

Karnak first appeared as a member of the Inhumans when he attempted to retrieve his cousin and queen, Medusa from the outside world and take her back to Attilan. This led him into conflict with the Fantastic Four, the first humans he met, who were harboring Medusa after rescuing her from the villainous Frightful Four. Accordingly, Karnak is indirectly responsible for revealing the existence of Attilan to the outside world. Karnak battled Maximus alongside the Inhuman Royal Family, and became trapped in Maximus' "negative zone" barrier around the Great Refuge. He was freed from the "negative zone" barrier along with the rest of the Inhumans by the Fantastic Four and left the Great Refuge with the Royal Family to visit the outside world. He teamed with the Thing, Human Torch, and Black Panther against the Psycho-Man. He aided the Inhuman Royal Family in defeating Maximus' next attempt to overthrow the Great Refuge.

He later assisted Gorgon in freeing Maximus. He journeyed to America to search for the missing Black Bolt. Gorgon battled Magneto and his mutated minions.

Karnak later battled Blastaar and the Kree Kaptroids. He traveled to New York City, where he battled Kree agent Shatterstar. Karnak was imprisoned by Maximus. He aided in the defeat of Maximus and the Evil Inhumans. Karnak then left Earth with the Inhuman Royal Family to prevent the Kree subjugation of the Inhumans, and battled various aliens. He continued to battle Kree agents, and then returned to Earth. Karnak later accompanied the Inhuman exodus when Attilan was relocated to the Blue Area of Earth's Moon.

Karnak later battled the Avengers while under Maximus' mind control. He then battled the High Evolutionary's forces during the Evolutionary War. He accompanied Medusa to Earth when she fled Attilan to avoid a compulsory abortion.

He was later sent to Earth with Gorgon in an attempt to find Black Bolt's missing son with Daredevil's help. There he and his companions fought against Ultron-13 in which Karnak's power allowed him to discover the weak spot in Ultron's neck. Later they became entangled in Mephisto's plot against Daredevil, and were transported to a netherworld where they were personally attacked by the supernatural entity known as Blackheart. Karnak's animosity towards Gorgon was fanned into a rage, causing actual physical violence. Blackheart was soon defeated and the group went their intended ways.

Karnak aids the New Warriors against the third Star-Thief. Alongside X-Factor, he then battles Apocalypse. He also helps the Avengers battle Thane Ector. Karnak joins an Inhuman strike team to help defeat the confused super-powered Sentry.

During the Secret Invasion, Karnak encounters a Skrull in the form of Toros. Karnak engages it and learns that it can copy his powers. Karnak manages to defeat the Toros-Skrull by sending it out the window where it was impaled on a fence.

Following Attilan's destruction during the Infinity storyline, Karnak goes on a rampage in New York at the start of the Inhumanity storyline. He is stopped and imprisoned by the Avengers. After warning Medusa to forget what she knows to prepare for a coming cataclysm, Karnak commits suicide by leaping out of one of the windows in Avengers Tower. Months pass by and the Terrigen Mists that spread throughout the world during Inhumanity have revealed Inhuman hybrids living among humans, dubbed the NuHumans. Medusa reveals their existence to the general public, and NuHumans become integrated into New Attilan society. One NuHuman named Lineage joins Medusa's council, taking Karnak's place. Lineage's power is having the knowledge of all his ancestors. Lineage plans to use the Inhuman genome to destroy humanity and rule the Inhumans. Meanwhile, Karnak has wound up in a strange afterlife that he believes to be hell. He and an ally he meets here plans to escape this place, and they successfully find a door out while holding off strange creatures. Karnak uses his ability to see the weakness in things to open the door, and finds himself bursting out of Lineage's chest in the real world, killing Lineage in the process. He realizes that what he thought was Hell was inside Lineage, as Karnak is one of his ancestors. Karnak tells Medusa he knows that she has been an outstanding queen in his absence and rejoins her council.

During the Civil War II storyline, Karnak was at New Attilan when Iron Man infiltrated it to claim Ulysses. Alongside Medusa and Crystal, Karnak was defeated by Iron Man and made off with Ulysses. Karnak joined Medusa, Crystal, and the Inhumans with them for a trip to Stark Tower. He nearly leveled it with his powers until the Avengers, the Ultimates, and S.H.I.E.L.D. arrived. Karnak was present when Ulysses projected his latest vision that involved a rampaging Hulk standing over the corpses of the superheroes.

During the Inhumans vs. X-Men storyline, Karnak is attacked by a time-displaced Jean Grey who telepathically traps him.

During the Secret Empire storyline, Karnak joins up with Daisy Johnson's Secret Warriors. While driving West, the Warriors encounter the Howling Commandos after falling into a trap. After escaping, the team is found by the X-Men.

Powers and abilities
Karnak has enhanced strength, stamina, durability, agility, and reflexes as a result of his genetically superior Inhuman physiology. Unlike most other Inhumans, he does not have superhuman powers because he was never exposed to the mutagenic Terrigen Mist. Instead, Karnak has the extrasensory ability (achieved through meditation and intensive training) to perceive stress points, fracture planes, or weaknesses in objects or persons. He has complete voluntary control of most of his autonomic bodily functions. All striking surfaces of his body are extremely toughened. He is capable of shattering substances up to and including mild steel and rendering superhuman opponents unconscious by striking them.

Like all Inhumans, Karnak's immune system is weaker than that of an average human.

Karnak has received his fighting skills as a result of Inhuman royal militia training. He is also a graduate of the religious seminary, at the Tower of Wisdom in Attilan.

He uses a hover-platform for transportation designed by Inhuman technicians.

Amalgam Comics
In Amalgam Comics, Triserinak - a combination of DC's Serifan and Marvel's Triton and Karnak - is a member of the superhero group Un-People in Amalgam Comics universe.

Earth X
In the alternate future of Earth X, Karnak has undergone a further mutation. His cranium has greatly increased and his features are now more sunken. During an investigative mission to Earth, he attempts to act as a calming influence among the members of the Royal Family. He has altered his uniform to expose his powerful limbs.

In the sequel Paradise X, he is shown as having exiled himself from his own people, seeing the marriage of Medusa and the King of Brittan as a betrayal of Black Bolt's memory and the superiority of the Inhumans.

Exiles
In Exiles, Karnak appears as one of the many heroes overtaken by a mutated version of the techno-organic Phalanx.

Heroes Reborn
In the Heroes Reborn continuity, Karnak lives with the other Inhumans, hidden on Earth. His society pays reverence to Galactus and his many heralds via statues. Karnak dresses in a more stylized version of his 616 uniform.

Marvel Zombies
In the Marvel Zombies continuity, Karnak is seen as one of the many zombies trying to bring down the Silver Surfer. He turns up again in a sequel to the story, visiting the "clone pens" of a zombified Kingpin. He is shredded by a chainsaw when he battles Earth-616's Machine Man. Another version, from Earth Z, is seen assisting in eating the Warbound. In a flashback series, Karnak is one of the many heroes fighting a last-ditch effort to evacuate as many un-infected humans to an alternate reality.

Mutant X
In Mutant X, Karnak joins with his fellow Inhumans and a team of Eternals to confront the murderous duo of the Beyonder and Dracula. Inhumans and Eternals alike are all killed and Dracula drains them.

Ultimate Marvel
In the Ultimate Marvel continuity, the Ultimate version of Karnak was introduced in Ultimate Fantastic Four Annual #1. Here, he is a member of the Inhuman royal family. His power is the ability to sense and control energy, for example, he sensed the stress-points in Sue Storm's invisible force-field, and attacked it with a bolt of electricity.

Television

 * Karnak appears in The New Fantastic Four episode "Medusa and the Inhumans", voiced by John Stephenson.
 * Karnak appears in Fantastic Four, two-part episode "Inhumans Saga", voiced by Clyde Kusatsu. In "The Sentry Sinister", when the Great Refuge became trapped by Maximus, Karnak raggedly attempted to use his powers to help them escape. Eventually, Black Bolt destroyed the dome by destroying the city.
 * Karnak appears in the Hulk and the Agents of S.M.A.S.H. episode "Inhuman Nature", voiced by Fred Tatasciore. He appears with the Inhuman Royal Family in a confrontation against the Agents of S.M.A.S.H.. Red Hulk fights Karnak which he maintained causing damage to the weak point of Red's weapon by splitting it in half. Then, in a truce, he discovers that Maximus secretly builds a weapon that will end all humanity.
 * Karnak appears in Ultimate Spider-Man, voiced again by Fred Tatasciore. In the episode "Inhumanity", Karnak is hypnotized by Maximus, who seized the city from them to cause a war against humanity, until he was released by Spider-Man. In the episode "Agent Web", Karnak was with the royal family of Inhumans when they confront Spider-Man and Triton outside the abandoned city of Atarog, until he asked for forgiveness, but it was in taking them to Triskelion.
 * Karnak appears in the Inhumans motion comic, voiced by Alex Zahara.
 * Karnak appears in Guardians of the Galaxy, voiced by Oliver Vaquer. In "Inhuman Touch", Karnak and Gorgon help the Guardians' ship, the Milano, land and then help repair it. Karnak even vowed to find Drax the Destroyer's weak point. Karnak later helps the Guardians of the Galaxy when Maximus does a trick on his way out of prison.
 * Karnak appears in Avengers Assemble, voiced again by Oliver Vaquer. In the episode "Inhumans Among Us", appears with Black Bolt, Medusa, Gorgon, and Lockjaw when a ship carrying Seeker crashes near Maple Falls. During the Avengers' fight with the Inhumans, Iron Man fought Karnak who he maintained causing damage to the weak spots in Iron Man's armor. When Inferno emerges from his Terrigen cocoon, the Avengers and Inhumans had to work together to stop Inferno. In the episode "The Inhuman Condition", Karnak appears among the Inhumans who are captured by Ultron. Later he is released by the Avengers. In the episode "Civil War, Part 4: Avengers Revolution", Karnak is being controlled by Ultron and alongside Gorgon and Inferno, to attack the Avengers.
 * Karnak appears in the live-action Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) television series Inhumans, portrayed by Ken Leung. After Maximus usurps the throne, Karnak is teleported by Lockjaw to Hawaii. He falls from a cliff and hits his head, throwing off his senses and causing him to be unable to accurately measure things. Karnak soon comes across some illegal cannabis farmers who reluctantly bring him in. He then begins developing a relationship with Jen, one of the cannabis farmers. Karnak and Jen are forced to flee when Reno begins to murder his partners. After reuniting Karnak with his family, Jen leaves to call the cops with Karnak being amused at the fact that she lasted longer than other woman he's been with as he gives his calculation of it: one day, six hours and forty-two minutes. Karnak and Gorgon leave to rescue Black Bolt's allies, Sammy and Dr. Evan Declan. While they manage to defeat Auran and her team, Mordis, a volatile Inhuman, unleashes his energy, killing himself and Gorgon in the building collapse and leaving Karnak devastated. He becomes determined to bring him back to life and during a failed parley, notices that Auran was uncomfortable. With his powers restored, Karnak teams up with Auran to use her DNA to bring Gorgon back through a second terrigenesis. He discovers later on, that the terrigenesis worked, but had made Gorgon unfocused. Karnak manages to speak to him and promises to help in any way he can. Black Bolt and Medusa understand what Karnak had to do and will hold him responsible if he does anything wrong. When he learns that Maximus' failsafe to destroy the dome cannot be stopped, he helps evacuate the city as he and his family escape through Lockjaw.
 * Karnak appears in Marvel Future Avengers, voiced by Hiroyuki Kinoshita in Japanese and Grant George in English.

Video games

 * Karnak appears as a non-playable character in Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, voiced by Michael Gough.
 * Karnak appears as a playable character in Marvel Contest of Champions.
 * Karnak appears as a playable character in Marvel: Future Fight.
 * Karnak appears as a playable character in Marvel Puzzle Quest.

Merchandise

 * Karnak appears as one of the 12 unique Heroclix figures included in the Marvel Supernova set.

title: Karnak (comics)


text:
Talk:Admiral of the Navy

January 1944 proposal
There's an article on the Eisenhower Memorial Commission website with the following story: "In early January 1944 President Roosevelt startled Admiral Leahy by telling him he was going to be promoted to five stars with the title Admiral of the Fleet. Stunned, Leahy replied that if such a promotion was under consideration the rank ought to be given to each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A few days later a Navy Captain informed the Army Chief of Personnel that the chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee would be introducing a bill in Congress, prepared by the Navy Department, to provide two new ranks; Admiral of the Navy (six-star rank) and Admiral of the Fleet (five stars). According to the Navy messenger, President Roosevelt had approved the plan and expected similar action to provide higher ranks for the Army with a six star General of the Armies and a five star General of the Army." The article goes on to say that Stimson shot down the six-star ranks as silly one-up-manship on the British, but the five-star ranks got approved after Montgomery got promoted to field marshal. Seems like this account might be detailed enough that someone could identify its sources?

Also, I remember reading (an old biography of King in a used bookstore) that early in the war, Knox tried to entice King to move his CINCUSFLEET headquarters to Hawaii to take personal command as Admiral of the Navy. King declined the promotion, since it was a transparent ploy by a political rival to shift him out of the power center of Washington D.C. Anyone else ever hear this? Morinao 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * (It's been 14 years, I guess I can finally answer my own question.)
 * The first story paraphrases a volume of Forrest Pogue's biography of George C. Marshall.
 * President Roosevelt had startled Admiral Leahy one morning in early January by announcing that he was going to promote him to higher rank, suggesting the title "Admiral of the Fleet." Leahy replied that similar rank should be given to the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A few days later, on January 13, a Navy captain informed the Army Chief of Personnel that Representative Carl Vinson, chairman of the House Naval Affairs Committee, would shortly introduce a bill prepared by the Navy Department to provide two new ranks, Admiral of the Navy (six-star rank) and Admiral of the Fleet (five-star). The plan was to give the higher rank to Leahy and King and the lower to Nimitz, Halsey, and Ingersoll. The President had approved the plan in part and had said that similar action to provide higher rank would be taken by the Army.
 * The second story appears in the Albion and Connery biography of Forrestal (not King).
 * At the first Quebec Conference in August 1943...Knox suggested to King that he take personal command of the Fleet for the forthcoming Pacific offensive and leave Horne to be Chief of Naval Operations....
 * Forrestal directed Horne to draw up a recommendation for the step, which by mid-January was embodied in a proposed Executive Order canceling those of December 18, 1941 and March 12, 1942, that had given King his double top position. By this draft, he would keep his proposed five stars with a new title, "Admiral of the Navy and Commander, United States Fleet." Horne, with four stars would be in a post independent of King, as the "Chief of Naval Logistics and Material." Those specific titles were so worded for very particular reasons. There was Roosevelt's resentment of the use of "Commander-in-Chief" by anyone but himself, as Knox mentioned in writing King. "Chief of Naval Operations" was discarded because it had developed so many connotations over the past twenty-nine years that it seemed best to make a clean break with tradition and use more pertinent wording.
 * ...Knox voiced his reactions in a long memorandum to King, which said in part:
 * After reading them all I am oppressed by the fact that evidently I cannot get across to anyone what I want and what the President and I have agreed should be done. First, this is not to be any reorganization of the Navy Department. It is, first of all, an elevation in rank for yourself and, second, a division of the duties of the Office of Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet and that of the Chief of Naval Operations. The change is designed to relieve you of that portion of your duties which relate to logistics and to confine your efforts to the actual conduct and operation of the fleet. It will enlarge the Office of the Chief of Naval Logistics so that he will assume entire responsibility for the supplying of the fleet after you, as Admiral of the Navy, have determined what, where and when the supplies consist of.
 * A third story appears in the Buell biography of King that explains why Admiral of the Navy is a six-star rank in the first story (where the rank was proposed by the House Naval Affairs Committee) but only five-star in the second (where the rank was proposed by the Navy).
 * Vinson wanted King and Marshall to have six-star ranks. "What I am seriously concerned about," wrote King to Marshall on 21 January 1944, "is that there are in prospect many promotions in Washington which will have serious repercussions in the Forces overseas unless provision is made for proportional promotion in the operating forces....Mr. Vinson has been advised of the foregoing views and appears to be agreeable to inclusion of a '5-star rank' but insistent on a '6-star rank.' I have got word to him that, personally, I have no desire whatever for the '6-star rank' unless and until a '5-star rank' is provided for--and further, that I think it advisable that any promotion in prospect in connection with Cominch-CNO should first be to '5-star rank.'"
 * Vinson's House Naval Affairs Committee actually reported out a bill on February 25, 1944, to reestablish the grade of Admiral of the Navy with the same pay and allowances as the General of the Armies, and authorizing two appointments (Leahy and King). But on June 22, 1944, the Senate passed a bill establishing the grade of Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy, with the pay of a rear admiral and larger allowances than an admiral, also authorizing two appointments. In a hearing the next day, the House Naval Affairs Committee adopted the Senate version, but made clear that both they and the Navy now viewed Admiral of the Navy as being one grade higher than fleet admiral.
 * Admiral JACOBS [Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel]: Under the bill as previously reported out by this committee, the rank would be Admiral of the Navy, which is one grade higher than the rank proposed in this bill.
 * Vinson's House Naval Affairs Committee actually reported out a bill on February 25, 1944, to reestablish the grade of Admiral of the Navy with the same pay and allowances as the General of the Armies, and authorizing two appointments (Leahy and King). But on June 22, 1944, the Senate passed a bill establishing the grade of Fleet Admiral of the United States Navy, with the pay of a rear admiral and larger allowances than an admiral, also authorizing two appointments. In a hearing the next day, the House Naval Affairs Committee adopted the Senate version, but made clear that both they and the Navy now viewed Admiral of the Navy as being one grade higher than fleet admiral.
 * Admiral JACOBS [Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel]: Under the bill as previously reported out by this committee, the rank would be Admiral of the Navy, which is one grade higher than the rank proposed in this bill.
 * Admiral JACOBS [Chief, Bureau of Naval Personnel]: Under the bill as previously reported out by this committee, the rank would be Admiral of the Navy, which is one grade higher than the rank proposed in this bill.

 * Admiral JACOBS: The total pay and allowances were $21,500, which is the present pay of the General of the Armies, General Pershing....This bill, as it has passed the Senate, proposes a personal money allowance for the fleet admiral of $5,000, which would mean an increase in the total compensation of an admiral advanced to the rank of fleet admiral of $2,800.
 * The CHAIRMAN [Vinson]: What would be the total pay?
 * Admiral JACOBS: $14,951.
 * Mr. MAAS: You proposed "Admiral of the Navy" for "fleet admiral."
 * Admiral JACOBS: That is correct.
 * Mr. MAAS: Now, if we go to "Admiral of the Navy" that would be equal to "General of the Armies" and certainly he should be parallel with the General of the Armies.
 * Admiral JACOBS: Yes, sir.
 * Mr. COLE: By what authority do you say this rank of "fleet admiral" is junior to the rank of "Admiral of the Fleet"?
 * Admiral JACOBS: I did not say that.
 * Mr. COLE: You said it is one step lower.
 * Admiral JACOBS: One step lower than "Admiral of the Navy."
 * Admiral JACOBS: "Admiral of the Navy" was the rank previously established by Congress and only one officer ever had it, Admiral Dewey. That is the highest rank in the Navy that any officer ever had.
 * Mr. BRADLEY: And that is nonexistent now.
 * Admiral JACOBS: That is nonexistent. The bill reported to the House on the 25th of February proposed to reestablish that rank. That bill has not passed--
 * Mr. BRADLEY: And it is contended the rank created by this bill is junior to the highest rank previously held?
 * Admiral JACOBS: That is correct.
 * The CHAIRMAN: In the other bill, we jumped this rank?
 * Admiral JACOBS: We jumped this rank in the other bill.
 * Mr. IZAC: Did we not provide for a certain number of admirals of the fleet and then, above that, "Admiral of the Navy?"
 * Admiral JACOBS: No, sir.
 * Mr. IZAC: We certainly talked about it.
 * Mr. MAAS: I sponsored a bill of that nature--a bill that would do exactly that. I still think we should do that.
 * Mr. MAAS: How many fleet admirals should the Navy have?
 * Admiral JACOBS: I am glad you asked that question, because I discussed this with Admiral King and his idea is there should be five.
 * Mr. MAAS: Now if we are going to give the commander in chief of the Navy the rank he ought to have, we ought to give him what he needs in that rank.
 * Admiral JACOBS: What he has asked for is five.
 * The CHAIRMAN: May I say this: From what inquiries I have made, I think we had better take two right now and establish the grade. I thoroughly agree there ought to be five; but I do not think now is the time to make it five.
 * Admiral JACOBS: I am glad you asked that question, because I discussed this with Admiral King and his idea is there should be five.
 * Mr. MAAS: Now if we are going to give the commander in chief of the Navy the rank he ought to have, we ought to give him what he needs in that rank.
 * Admiral JACOBS: What he has asked for is five.
 * The CHAIRMAN: May I say this: From what inquiries I have made, I think we had better take two right now and establish the grade. I thoroughly agree there ought to be five; but I do not think now is the time to make it five.

 * - Morinao (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * and, it seems to me that this only mentions that Admiral of the Navy would have been the same pay grade as General of thee Armies, but it doesn't mention that it is equivalent in rank, which would be no different to a Marine master gunnery sergeant and a sergeant major. While they have the same paygrade of E-9, sergeant major outranks a master gunnery sergeant. Or how an Army specialist and a corporal are both E-4s, but a corporal outranks a specialist. So in this comparison, Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral are considered both five-star ranks, but Admiral of the Navy is senior to fleet admiral due to having a higher pay grade, similar to how rear admirals, at the time, had two pay grades (lower half) and (upper half) but they are both two-star admirals. This comparison became a moot point because Admiral of the Navy ceased to exist, before the introduction of fleet admiral. This just enforces the fact that fleet admiral replaced the rank of Admiral of the Navy, even though it was paid less. Neovu79 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * From the hearing transcript, it appears that the Chief of Naval Personnel thought that Admiral of the Navy had not been replaced at all, since the House Naval Affairs Committee had put the option on the table to reestablish the grade and instead the Senate created new grades of fleet admiral and general of the Army, that were junior to General of the Armies, which the Navy viewed as equivalent to Admiral of the Navy. So to the extent that you can't say that general of the Army replaced General of the Armies, you also can't say that fleet admiral replaced Admiral of the Navy.
 * According to the Pogue reference, if Vinson's original proposal to establish both five- and six-star ranks at the same time had actually gone through, Admiral of the Navy would have been the six-star rank and Admiral of the Fleet (or fleet admiral) would have been the five-star rank. That's why in that hearing they all treat Admiral of the Navy as being distinct and above fleet admiral. - Morinao (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To this point, the argument between them was moot but the Navy never executed this in practice, because the rank ceased to exist after Dewey's death. Unless you can have a source, via regulation that can prove otherwise, then we can see about amending this. Neovu79 (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 1951 Navy Regulations apparently did distinguish between Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral, according to this All Hands letter:
 * ...I believe that U.S. Navy Regulations, 1951, indicate that Admiral of the Navy was a grade equivalent to General of the Armies, which was held only by "Black Jack" Pershing, and that both of these ranks were higher than the present five-star ranks of Fleet Admiral and General of the Army.
 * My belief is based primarily on Article 2139 of Navy Regs, which prescribes a 19-gun salute and full dress uniforms for the arrival and departure of an Admiral of the Navy and a General of the Armies, while a Fleet Admiral or a General of the Army rates only a 17-gun salute.
 * Unfortunately it's hard to find a copy of Navy Regulations as they actually appeared in 1951, since the |only online copy has been updated with change sheets that apparently removed mention of both ranks in 1955, even though the title page still says 1948 (in the book, search for "Admiral of the Navy"). But it was probably very similar to the Table of Honors in Article 238 of the |1920 Navy Regulations (1941 revision), which shows "Admiral of the Navy or General of the Armies" with 19-gun salute and full dress uniform, and the next row is "Admiral or General" with 17-gun salute and dress uniform. From the All Hands letter, it sounds like "Fleet Admiral or General of the Army" just duplicated the "Admiral or General" row.- Morinao (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's hard to find a copy of Navy Regulations as they actually appeared in 1951, since the |only online copy has been updated with change sheets that apparently removed mention of both ranks in 1955, even though the title page still says 1948 (in the book, search for "Admiral of the Navy"). But it was probably very similar to the Table of Honors in Article 238 of the |1920 Navy Regulations (1941 revision), which shows "Admiral of the Navy or General of the Armies" with 19-gun salute and full dress uniform, and the next row is "Admiral or General" with 17-gun salute and dress uniform. From the All Hands letter, it sounds like "Fleet Admiral or General of the Army" just duplicated the "Admiral or General" row.- Morinao (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet

 * Capt. Roy C. Smith, testifying before the House Committee on Naval Affairs (16 May 1912): "Admiral Dewey is Admiral of the Navy, equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet, a rank which is higher than any we have ever had. Admiral Farragut and Admiral Porter were admirals in our Navy."

and so if you look above at Higher Rank discussion, it states that Admiral of the Navy is equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet, which is a five-star rank in the Royal Navy. I did check the source provided and the statement does indeed match. Was trying to gauge your opinion. While the above discussion does go into Admiral Dewey being the only person holding this grade, the comments from the Navy officer leads me to believe that this is not a six-star rank, but a once-in-a-lifetime-used five-star rank that the Navy no longer uses. None of the above sources makes any mention that Admiral of the Navy is of higher rank to fleet admiral. It is my opinion, that since this rank is equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet (five-star), it is also equivalent to fleet admiral and fleet admiral replaced it as the Navy's official five-star rank, much in the same way rear admiral (lower half) replaced commodore as the official one-star rank. Neovu79 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 * I think that’s fair. It would make more sense, and I believe there’s been no official word on its status with Fleet Admiral. The six star stuff may be made up. Garuda28 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Going off this, I pulled up Admiral Dewey's bio from the NHHC and it states that he was promoted from rear admiral to admiral on 8 March 1899. Through the Act of Congress passed on 2 March 1899, he was appointed to the rank of Admiral of the Navy. However, he was not officially promoted to Admiral of the Navy until 24 Mach 1903, with the retroactive date-of-rank of 2 March 1899. Now things are starting to make sense to me. Neovu79 (talk) 02:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I cleared all of the misinformation about Admiral of the Navy. Feel free to make any additional corrections, if you guys come upon them. Neovu79 (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * When I chose the references in the "Higher Rank" section, I was only trying to refute someone who was claiming that Admiral of the Navy was the same grade as Farragut/Porter. So all they show is that Admiral of the Navy is higher than admiral, not how much higher. I would not declare Admiral of the Navy to be equivalent to fleet admiral just based on that one 1912 reference.
 * It appears the Navy viewed Admiral of the Navy/General of the Armies as equivalent to Admiral of the Fleet/Field Marshal all the way up to 1944, when Carl Vinson started talking about six-star ranks, and a new grade of fleet admiral was created whose compensation was intermediate between admiral and General of the Armies. At that point the Chief of Naval Personnel started talking as if the new five-star fleet admiral had been inserted between the existing four-star admiral and a not-yet-reestablished six-star Admiral of the Navy.
 * But Admiral of the Navy was never reestablished and the Army always refused to confirm that General of the Armies was now a six-star rank, so the six-star question remains unresolved. Nevertheless, it's a legitimate question, much discussed at the time and ever since, and not just made up.- Morinao (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we never said it is a made-up rank and I do generally agree with most of your assessment. But without easily accessible sources and/or a definitive confirmation, we can't add it to Wiki because it will be easily WP:challenged by others as not being WP:Reliable. Because, as you just said, the Army and Navy has never officially confirmed where the ranks stand and it was never executed into practice, and they probably never will, because 1) one of the ranks not longer exist, 2) only two people in U.S. history has ever been given the rank of General of the Armies and 3) Congress would be very upset if the Army or the Navy were to waste taxpayer resources and time on something so minute and trivial, and does not have a real-world application, or justification to date. But my general assessment of your new post is that Admiral of the Navy and fleet admiral are equivalent in rank just not the same pay grade. Neovu79 (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question can't be answered. Even the Navy gave up back in the 1950s. But that's also exactly why you also can't just declare Admiral of the Navy to be equivalent to five-star fleet admiral. There is sufficient controversy, sufficiently documented, that it can't be resolved one way or the other, until one or both of the ranks is reestablished, which is never going to happen. - Morinao (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given the information that we have, the Navy does not have an established six-star rank. The Navy does have an established five-star rank. The Army, the Navy and Congress do not officially recognize Admiral of the Navy and General of the Armies to be equivalent ranks. I think for wording sake, the article should say that the Admiral of the Navy is at the least equivalent to five-star rank, as the Navy has established it to be higher than a four-star admiral, but they failed to get Congress to elevate it to be of higher rank. Therefore, we should created a section acknowledging the Navy's attempt to re-establish the rank, and it's attempt to elevate it to six-star, however since Congress refused to pass it's re-establishment, the Navy conceded it's attempt to elevate the rank to six-star. Neovu79 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So I think the general misconception with this whole thing is that while the Navy does in fact believe that Admiral of the Navy should be a six-star rank, ultimately they do not have the legal authority to create, re-establish, and/or set seniority of commissioned officer ranks. That power is vested through Congress, as they are the ones who not only fund the Navy, but they are their creators. So, in other words, the Navy does not have final say in this, and no matter how much smoke the Navy blows about the seniority of the rank of Admiral of the Navy, but without Congress's approval through law, it will never legally be a six-star rank. Neovu79 (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

(break)
Hey guys I work at US forces Europe and used to serve for a time at the Institute of Heraldry. I get all the recent cleanup of these six star articles, they needed to happen. I did want to say that the insignia images are all real. IOH has a full file on them. I put them back in this article and General of the Armies. I would suggest anyone interested in further confirmation contact IOH directly. They will also be happy to confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4001:4460:91a5:9c1e:4bb2:7ef3 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since that image was added via WP:ORIGINAL research, and since it is not easily accessible to WP:VERIFY via WP:THIRDPARTY, it cannot be added. Unpublished work is not considered WP:RELIABLE. We need to be able to add exact references to those images to properly WP:SOURCE them, in order for them to be added. Meaning, we need page number(s), file indexes, author(s), etc, anything that we as go directly to that source to verify it. An email verification from IOH is not a verifiable WP:THIRDPARTY source, for John and Jane user. Neovu79 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To our IP friend here from US Forces Europe and the IOH; please see reply to your identical post at Talk:General of the Armies. - wolf  23:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge
Discussion of possible merge that may affect this article, see Talk:General of the Armies. - wolf  09:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Higher rank review
So here we go a few months later and we're still fighting over this. We are once again debating the legitimacy of AN as a six-star rank from a source that mentions that it is considered equivalent general of the armies, but does not take into account the failed attempt by the Navy to elevate the rank, as mentioned above. Let us please establish, again, a consensus. Neovu79 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 * I don't know if it necessarily needs to be a debate, (certainly not a contentious one), but I do think a discussion is needed, a wider one (than just "debating the legitimacy of AN as a six-star rank") that hopefully involves more than just two or three editors, and with that, it should probably be held on a different page than here, (like wt:milhist for example), because this affects more pages than just this one. I've been going through the talk pages at;

 * Six-star rank
 * Five-star rank
 * General of the Armies
 * General of the Army (United States)
 * Admiral of the Navy (United States)
 * Fleet admiral (United States)
 * John J. Pershing
 * George Dewey
 * Template:US officer ranks
 * United States Army officer rank insignia
 * United States Navy officer rank insignia
 * - looking for related discussions, and the most recent discussion/consensus that led to the most recent changes involving these pages. It's difficult, given all the b.s. that was added by OberRanks, as well as the limited sourcing. Still looking thru talk pages, but in the meantime, unless someone wants to suggest another location, I think milhist would be best place. (pinging ) Cheers - wolf  22:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would suggest taking it to milhist, with special focus on Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So, before any full RfC, I'd like to hear from . It seems most of the current content is based on changes from the discussion between he and Neovu79, who we've heard from here. The lead states "The rank is considered to be at least equivalent to that of five star...". But there are sources stating that the Navy considered it superior to that, in the discussion above and with in the recent edit I attempted. While there's more detailed content in the body, is the lead adequately summarizing that? And while sources need to be evaluated for context, I think we should be wary of any synth. - wolf  20:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Still waiting to see when will pop back up again. He hasn't edited in about 3 three months, but he's been here since 2004 and this doesn't seem unusual for him. Anyway, in the meantime, found this article the other day, don't know about the source, but it's used as a ref on some other WP pages and all the content in it is cited. I'm not attaching it to any new content right now or using it to support any changes. I'm just mentioning it because it has a lot of info, about all the ranks of the from BG & RDML, right up to to "six" and even "seven" star US ranks (lol! But only discussion about possible equivalents). I don't know if maybe some here might already be familiar with this article, or know some of sources cited, (or if there's some 'circular' going on), but I thought I'd mention it, see if anyone found it worth the read. I still think some changes may be needed to the way we present these ranks, how sources are being interpreted, what equivalencies are presented, and the hierarchies being drawn, but I don't see this as urgent, so it can wait to see what, if anything, develops. Cheers -  wolf  19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Regarding sources, the HistoryNet article is not actually a reference for Admiral of the Navy being considered equivalent to a six-star rank. It very carefully and correctly says the following:
 * "In 1903, Dewey was promoted to the unprecedented rank of “admiral of the Navy” (retroactive to March 2, 1899). He was the only officer to hold this highest-ever U.S. naval rank that is considered equivalent to John J. Pershing’s later (promoted 1919) “general of the armies” rank."

 * The bootcampmilitaryfitnessinstitute pages are basically Wikipedia articles: they are a great place to find reliable sources, but should not be referenced directly. For example, the six-star page includes the OberRanks fabrication about MacArthur being considered for six-star promotion during World War II, meaning it draws information directly from Wikipedia.

 * From the references in the General of the Armies article, the documentable equivalences are:
 * 1) Admiral of the Navy (1899) > four-star grade (1915)
 * 2) Admiral of the Navy (1899) = General of the Armies (1919)
 * 3) General of the Armies (1919) > four-star grade (1929)
 * 4) General of the Armies (1919) >= five-star grade (only rank is senior, so could be same grade)

 * This gets us to Admiral of the Navy >= five-star grade.

 * 5) General of the Armies (1976) > General of the Armies (1919) (either higher rank in same grade, or new grade ranking higher than Pershing grade)
 * 6) General of the Armies (1976) > five-star grade (grade is senior)

 * This gets us to Washington > five-star grade, but not Pershing/Dewey > five-star grade.

 * If the 1944 proposal had gone through, we would also have had:
 * 7) Admiral of the Navy (1944) = six star grade

 * But it didn't, so we don't.

 * So I would suggest something like this:
 * "Admiral of the Navy was the highest ranking grade in the United States Navy. It was only ever held by George Dewey, the victorious commander at the Battle of Manila Bay, who held the unique rank until his death in 1917, when it was abolished. Congress considered reestablishing Admiral of the Navy as a six-star grade when it created the five-star grade of fleet admiral in 1944, but the proposal was dropped. Admiral of the Navy is still sometimes said to be a six-star grade because it ranked equally with the grade of General of the Armies that was held by John J. Pershing, who is treated as senior in rank to the five-star officers appointed during World War II. However, neither Pershing nor Dewey ever wore more than four stars."

 * (In general, please don't gate any decisions on input from me, since I can only edit very intermittently.) - Morinao (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the reply and the information. Perhaps those other interested parties may want to consider some edits to this, and perhaps any related or listed articles, with input from your post. Obviously this isn't a pressing matter and there no urgent need to address it, if at all, depending on any prevailing consensus. Thank again & Cheers -  wolf  00:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Admiral of the Navy


text: User talk:164.107.197.239

title: User talk:164.107.197.239


text:
Talk:Workers Party (United States)

Untitled
Discussion about the title of this article and its recent change can be found at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms). Feel free to contribute. -- hike395 16:27, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Workers Party (United States)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guest stars on Joey

 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 merge and redirect to Joey (sitcom). —Korath (Talk) 22:51, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

List of guest stars on Joey
I don't see any reason why this should be a separate article from Joey (sitcom). The Joey article is not very long and there's plenty of space to list the six guest stars there. It's very inconvenient to require readers to go to a separate article. As it stands, this article is non-notable and unencyclopedic. Delete Carrp | Talk 16:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge — RJH 18:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. --Sn0wflake 19:12, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep. Since this article contains useful content that isn't in the main article, you should have merged it yourself or used a tag, not Vfd. Kappa 19:51, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Zzyzx11 21:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, trivial fork. Megan1967 22:47, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not nearly as important as People who have performed on Ashlee Simpson albums.  RickK 23:35, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. I've just (sort of) done so; possibly the article could remain as a redirect or (the beauty of a Wiki) an inserted section, so could appear in the article. Alphax (t) (c) (e) 00:17, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. Fair play; I'm the author, and I was just following the pattern for Friends and List of guest stars on Friends. It's probably too early for that—perhaps split when there's a coupla hundred there, eh? :) —Neuropedia 03:58, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)
 * Delete without merge. ComCat 02:23, 4 Mar 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.