text:
Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote

Voting is now closed.

Vote

 * A remove vote supports no longer adding "rel=nofollow" to external links in the English Wikipedia.
 * A keep vote supports the continued use of this attribute.

Remove: 87 (61%) Keep: 55 (39%)

Remove attribute: allow external links from WP to affect Google PageRanks of their targets
Manta 17:16, 20 Aug 2008 (UTC) Just one other comment from the peanut gallery: Some of us from the old school would just like to get people to visit our sites because we are trying to build something good and just in the face of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of commercial scams that threaten to destroy the usability of the internet just as they have slammed their adverising grafitti into the everything but our dreams! Sure I advertise, we all do, we have to support the cost of our efforts some way, but everything has its place and the place is not the onslaught of sites that contain nothing more than google ad links and clever code to make you go there in the first place in hopes you will use one of there links rather than hit the back button, or infomercials that do nothing more than sell pyramid schemes to sell more informercials! OK Enough of my soap box, soory, back to what I wanted to say... We need to allow links to sites so the cream to rise to the top. We need to find ways to educate the public in ignoring the bad sites, the scams that arrive in their emails and the infomercials that are almost as plentiful as quility programming these days or we will end up like the cops in the movie Demolition Man, Thinking that commercials are kewl!? I have invested 10 years of my life in trying to provide content that is useful (this is the part where I am supposeed to plug my websites CC2k (look it up if you are interested) but I am not going to. I just couldnt resist speaking my piece to raise awareness in battling the commercial graffitti going on in our lives. It is not ok when some 14 year old wanna be gangster spray paints your wall, it should be just as NOT OK for corporations to spray paint our TV, Stereos, Computers, and Minds! - 'Nough Said!
 * 1) --SPUI (talk) 00:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Slowking Man 01:04, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:07, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC) [Comment & responses moved to Comments section below by Jerzy(t) 22:33, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)]
 * 4) brlcad 01:17, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * 5) Khym Chanur 01:41, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) — Itai (f&t) 02:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Jordi·✆ 02:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) bdesham 02:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) If the system discriminated in any reasonable way between "good" and "bad" links, I would support. As it is now, I cannot. This is a not yet complete implementation of a not yet proven technology. - RedWordSmith 02:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) * Which unproven "technology" are you referring to? It's just standard HTML. -- Curps 03:15, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) ** No it isn't. There is no "nofollow" in the W3C XHTML standard. Other people may use this value with a different meaning. Implementing Google's "nofollow" in Wikipedia means that me may break other bots that use this value in a different way. NSK 05:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) *** Neither is there a "stylesheet" attribute defined for element rel—the value specified by the XHTML 1.0 Transitional DTD is unqualified CDATA. rel="nofollow" is perfectly valid XHTML1 (run it through the validator), and as the three most widely used search engines (not to mention nearly all content management systems) have committed to supporting it, it's unlikely that someone will implement "nofollow" with different semantics before it's codified by the W3C.  ADH (t&m) 11:19, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) *If it isn't standard yet, it very soon will be. Yahoo and MSN Search will support it.  -- Curps 14:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Jerzy(t) 03:41, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * 15) FrankH 03:57, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia links have to be one of the highest quality sources of link that can be used to improve search results.  Let's help improve search results and find some other way to stop the edit bots.
 * 16) What Ævar said. This "solution" is ridiculous. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Geni 05:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Why exactly are we doing this? It's stated right there that this action won't deter spammers, so why ruin the PageRank of good resources? Mo0 [ talk ] 05:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) *The statement up at the top that it won't deter spammers is disputed. Google believes it will:  -- Curps 14:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) As annoying as the Russian spambot has been this week, nofollow is not the right solution. Rhobite 05:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Remove this attribute. It doesn't solve spam, it doesn't help Wikipedia and it affects good external links. NSK 05:40, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Spammers won't know about the nofollow, and even if they did they'd want to get their link mirrored on all the sites that use our content (and on Wikipedia itself) for the direct traffic. Tuf-Kat 05:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) We should boost the reputation of good sites we link to. Spam is quickly removed. —Morven 06:19, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) It doesn't prevent link-spamming and as vandalism normally gets reverted pretty quickly anyway the chance of a search-engine bot indexing the page during the time the spamed link is there is small. Thryduulf 06:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) Eloquence* 06:24, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC) - better solutions are needed (recently added links are less valuable than those which have persisted for months, for example)
 * 26) Johan Magnus 06:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 27) Academic Challenger 08:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 28) Remove from very active Wikipedias only, leave on those with less than say 20,000 articles. -- The Anome 10:30, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 29) --Silverback 11:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia's external links are as good as the articles and the rest of the internet including users of google should benefit from them.
 * 30) Fred Bauder 13:10, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 31) JYolkowski 17:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 32) It's way too early to be using nofollow. If the problem becomes critical for Wikipedia, we can always put it in later. At the moment, using nofollow has too many disadvantages for us. -- nknight 18:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 33) We should relish the chance we have to be a positive contributor to the Web as a whole, instead of being isolationist. foobaz·✐ 21:18, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 34) I don't see a benefit in doing this, and a see a lot of negatives. It seems petty. Easy choice, don't do it. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 35) Jiang 02:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 36) I refuse to support it because it is not part of any written standard.  If there was something like a nospam, I would support it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 37) Matthew Woodcraft 14:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 38) The external links that persist in en Wikipedia are generally at least as likely to be relevant as say links on a random webpage.  I would much rather revert the occasional spam edit than keep google from using the information. Jrincayc 16:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 39) BesigedB (talk) 17:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Linking from here is a good reflection on the content of a page, reverting bad links as they're come across is easy enough.
 * 40) Wikipedia external links are generally good quality and it would be a shame if google pagerank didn't use them just because we're worried about spammer abuse. - McCart42 17:43, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * 41) However, it would be nice if it could be enabled on a per-page basis. Nofollow serves no purpose for, say, History of the Soviet Union, but might be a good idea for Viagra. Fredrik | talk 20:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 42) Jmabel | Talk 21:08, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 43) --Henrygb 21:58, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Remember to cull dubious links
 * 44) —Ben Brockert (42) UE News  00:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 45) gcbirzantalk 02:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 46) If link spam is an urgent problem, a better solution would be captchas for adding links --Ellmist 02:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 47) Onco p53 10:43, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 48) Obviously. Dunc|☺ 12:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 49) nofollow will certainly help reduce the spam in google's search results, but I doubt it will actually deter spammers from posting anytime soon.   ~leif ☺ HELO 15:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 50) Grue 18:14, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 51) Thoken 22:25, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 52) ✏ Sverdrup 22:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 53)   -- Scott  eiπ  23:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 54) Spammers don't care if technology is in place to reduce their effectiveness; let's not break the web with yet another misguided attempt to solve the wrong problem. --Plek 23:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 55) ABCD 03:04, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 56) Jtatum 05:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: User's first edit. Carrp | Talk 05:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Andre ( talk ) 13:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Gamaliel 18:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Beta m (talk) 18:25, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * 4) Trilobite (Talk) 21:52, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Olve 21:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Dcoetzee: See my comments below.
 * 7) SimonP 05:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Thue | talk 12:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) cesarb 15:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Decumanus 16:24, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC). Should Wikipedia affect PageRank? That I can't answer. But I do know that I do enjoy rewarding good, authoritative sites (especially other wiki sites) in the "External links" section. For me, it makes the hunt for solid sources more enjoyable, knowing we can share the PageRank boost with them a little.
 * 11) Eugene van der Pijll 17:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) cfp 21:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Too early to start using "nofollow", but perhaps we could allow admins to mark links from certain contributors as nofollow or force newbies and anons to mark their links that way, allowing other users to remove the attribute later.  Bart133 (t) 02:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) *It's an interesting idea, but I suspect it's technically infeasable. Finding a way to implement this would be very hairy. --Improv 05:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Bcat (talk)x|   02:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) The bleeding edge, bleeds for a reason. While the idea of controlling what we do to site's pagerank is attractive, there needs to be a balance. Like maybe a differnt wiki syntax like maybe  on the page (and all the unpleasnt database implications) ... for now error on the side of standard and pattroling pages. Maybe a automatic Nofollow ONLY for stubs? There IS a middle ground, until then, Remove it. --Dbroadwell 05:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Squash 09:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) (Comments below.) Uncle G 16:42, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * 19) Etimbo | Talk 17:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) IMO, the implicit "punishment" for good sites we want to link far outweights the theoretical benefits. Ideally, a nofollow could be added to links that are new for a few days or a week, because after a few days at most, spam is usually removed. But as long as that is not possible, I don't want nofollow at all. -- AlexR 18:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) --Eurotrader 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Nofollow should be removed because 99.99% of Wikipedia's external links are pointing to high quality informational articles. These sites deserve to receive credit, and Wikipedia gained its Pagerank in the same exact manner. I am a webmaster and I link to Wikipedia pages because they are useful to my visitors. I have a high Pagerank and I am happy to share it with well deserving sites. Informational articles need links to show up high in search engines. If Wikipedia is removing link credit, these quality pages won't show up nearly as high and some irrelevent spam site will show up higher. Nofollow is proposed to reduce spam, but it really is "throwing out the baby with the bath water." Please remove nofollow.
 * Fewer than 100 edits. Possible sockpuppet. --Slowking Man 00:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 99.99%? From a quick survey of my watchlist, I'd say 50% at best, and at least 30% garbage links. --Carnildo 23:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Frankie Roberto Remove it. We don't need this to combat linkspam, the community editing system itself can manage.
 * Y'think? Look at the edit history of PHP. Spambots are here. I don't want to spend all my time reverting robots (which will never get tired or hungry, and will never ever stop.) Dan100 14:47, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * And which are not deterred by nofollow. rel=nofollow is active now, and yet as you mention this has not stopped the Spambot. Nor will it deter future asshats. Jordi·✆ 15:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Bad idea, Nofollow in Wikipedia. --Sweets 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Nofollow must go: it is a "poor quality" sign --BozMo|talk 23:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) r3m0t 00:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme
 * Fewer than 100 edits. Possible sockpuppet. --Slowking Man 00:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove and be bold editing the links Audiovideo 11:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Remove, --Monoet 14:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove, not very useful and way too many disadvantages for Wikipedia. --Mononoke 17:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove, Arguments see above --Leopard 22:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Remove. Maybe I missed a link to it, but I don't see anyone referencing Sunir's comments. I agree with him. -- Hex 23:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Remove, leave on for unattended wikis. Agree with BozMo: Nofollow is a "poor quality" sign.   — mark ✎ 10:06, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Remove.  It won't stop linkspam, and it reduces the value of other resources (such as Google). -- Dominus 13:57, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Yes, finally remove it again, at least for the popular Wikis as was discussed in the previous vote. This is a ridiculous attribute and doesn't help Wikipedia and the Web at all. Let Wikipedia help the search engines and thereby Web users worldwide with this very well-edited link lists. Patrice Neff 21:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Eriathwen 22:38, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fewer than 100 edits. Possible sockpuppet. --Slowking Man 00:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 03:53, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Remove. It's not doing a good job as it is. No need to keep complicating pages or trying to mess with other search engine's algorithms. Let Google sort links on its own. I would support adding nofollow in specific places, like sandboxes, user pages, or article stubs... but Wikipedia is more than just some huge guestbook full of comments and unfiltered links. It is only natural that search engines should be able to pick up on useful third party sites that get linked to for informational purposes from articles. Schmiddy 06:47, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Remove This is an issue for google, et al to sort out, not wikipedia. Let links be as they are. (Spammers are likely to come here, regardless). EggplantWizard 05:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove Dragons flight 20:36, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) .:Ajvol:. 08:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Wikipedia links have to be one of the highest quality sources of link that can be used to improve search results.
 * 6) Remove --Chrisjustinparr 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Why should we be bullied by spammers when if all we need is for people to correct the spam links. Just lock the articles more often

Keep attribute: don't allow external links from WP to affect Google PageRanks of their targets

 * 1) Carnildo 01:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) — Catherine\talk 02:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) - better to have the rep that "you can't spam Wikipedia"
 * 3) Curps 02:14, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) * Google encourages using nofollow anywhere that users can add links themselves and does believe it is "the way to keep spammers at bay" . -- Curps 14:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) silsor 02:20, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) DavidWBrooks 02:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) - I encounter enough unnecessary external links as it is.
 * 7) —Korath (Talk) 04:52, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Less gaming = more content. - Nunh-huh 05:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * 9) We're an NPOV encyclopedia, we shouldn't be increasing other sites page rank regardless of if they are a good reference or not.   —  マイケル   ₪  05:34, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Sam Hocevar 11:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't think Wikipedia should reward "good" sites. If the information in the site is good, then just put that information in Wikipedia.
 * 11) I wholeheartedly support this initiative, and don't think we should be engaging in the politics of search engine ranking outside Wikimedia projects.  ADH (t&m) 12:08, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) I see no merit in giving editors control over this feature.  It should be a matter of complete indifference to Wikipedia whether Google ranks are affected, and those to whom it does matter, for whatever reason, should be denied the opportunity to abuse the ability to affect Google rankings, since those rankings can be of no legitimate value to Wikipedia itself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Stirling Newberry 14:08, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC) Given the three revert rule and the incentives to article spam, nofollow makes even more sense with big wikipedias.
 * 14) I don't agree with the argument that we should help boost the page ranking of "good" sites.  What's good as an ext link in our article will often differ from what's good for a Google searcher.  For example, we might well have no reason to link to a good general (encyclopedic) summary of a subject (we'd just cannibalize the information), but we'd link to a fringe site that gives detail on some minor aspect or expounds an unorthodox theory.  Also, I'm less worried about spambots than about human users' normal disputes concerning links.  Those disputes could be even harder to resolve, because, in addition to wanting to shape the article, editors want to game the Google rankings. JamesMLane 14:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The flaw in this argument is that you should be citing your sources by linking to informative pages you "cannabalize". Deco 03:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How is that either a "flaw" in the argument, or pertinent to the question at hand? Having "nofollow" interferes in no way whatsoever with citing sources. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The argument asserts that we don't link good sources, because we'd rather copy material from them. I assert that such sources are linked, precisely because we do copy from them, and cite our sources. I don't see the trouble. Deco 05:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This is, in part, wishful thinking. While we should cite our sources, that does not mean that everyone does. It is indeed true that, for lots of data, sources go uncited. As a typical example, take Earth. The entire post of:
 * The interior of Earth, like that of the other terrestrial planets, is chemically divided into an outer siliceous solid crust, a highly viscous mantle, a liquid outer core that is much less viscous than the mantle, and a solid inner core. The liquid outer core gives rise to a weak magnetic field due to the convection of its electrically conductive material.
 * ...does not have any sources cited for its data. The data is considered publically available and simple consensus, and is therefore not cited. When people are Googling, they are more often looking for general data. So, when we fail to cite these things, we bias Google somewhat against what it's supposed to be doing. Just my two cents. --Chris Drostie 04:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Drostie. I'd add, in response to Deco's point, that I have no problem with citing a general summary if the editors use it for the Wikipedia article, but they won't always use it.  If I see something in a general site, I might well confirm it with a more specialized resource, then cite the latter.  Examples of proper reasons for ext linking would include "This site supports one particular assertion in the article" or "This site has more detailed information on some aspect that's not worth elaborating on at length in the article".  There's no strong correlation between such reasons and "This site deserves a high ranking on a Google search for the overall topic." JamesMLane 09:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't think that WP should be in the business of helping or hurting a site's Google PageRank. If a good site is relevant to an article, adding an external link helps Wikipedia users, which is the whole point of WP. Carrp | Talk 15:26, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep it.  For same reasons listed by Carrp.  — <font color="006000" title="User:Freakofnurture">F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( <font color="006000" title="User talk:Freakofnurture">TALK )  10:02, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Use nofollow. See main proposal page for justification. --Improv 16:17, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep nofollow.  See comments for justification.Superm401 00:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) The upside is reduced incentive to spam. I see no downside. Wolfman 05:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep the Nofollow JFW | T@lk  07:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Datrio 12:04, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) WP shouldn't be in a position to affect PageRanks, whether intentional/indirect or not.--jag123 14:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) alteripse 17:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep nofollow.  Kaibabsquirrel 18:19, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Weft 19:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) munnin Keep
 * Fewer than 100 edits. Possible sockpuppet. --Slowking Man 00:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) --AStanhope 21:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Agree with Carrp.  Wikipedia articles should exist in a vacuum as far as Google is concerned.  Every functioning disincentive to spam should be employed for as long as it is able to serve its purpose.
 * 2) Keep. dont see why we should be pushing article editors POV about which sites are good or bad. I dont think WP should be pushing one site over another, whatever the reason. Plus a large number of articles are watched over by just 2-3 people at most, and nothing prevents them from pushing one site over another. kaal 21:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with DavidWBrooks. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:44, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep, I think removing this feature goes against our NPOV policy. Mentioning a useful outside site is a good thing as it helps our users, but we should not be seen to be promoting them beyond this. --Rje 03:29, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) I think we get enough linkspam as it is. If it were generally known that Wikipedia now removed the nofollow attribute, we can expect to be flooded with even more linkspam. --Deathphoenix 05:36, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep nofollow, if the choice is keeping it vs. removing it everywhere on en.wikipedia.org. I would, however, support removing the nofollow tag for article pages only, because I believe that pointing to good resources (which is what our external links should be) and therefore having them ranked more highly in Google and other searches is a good thing, and I'm persuaded that the community policies those sufficiently well to combat linkspam in the article namespace. However, when it comes to talkpages, we can't revert bad links on sight because that stifles discussion and runs contrary to our policy, and Wikipedia is viewed highly enough by Google and other search engines that linkspam on talk pages could become a *major* problem quickly. -- Seth Ilys 13:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep. ElBenevolente 17:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep. -- R yan!  |  Talk  18:12, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Keep. Agree with JamesMLane. --David Iberri | Talk 14:18, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Keep. Andrew pmk 04:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Keep. Warofdreams 15:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Keep. RSpeer 23:35, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Keep.SYSS Mouse 02:45, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Keep. Shoecream 06:20, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) Keep. Squallwc 08:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Keep. Sorry for the good links, but link spamming has gone out of control. andy 09:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 17) Keep. Link spamming is a problem, even on en, and I'm sure it will be even more of a problem in the future. Shanes 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 18) Keep. --Hedgeman 06:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Keep. Circeus 13:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Keep. Matthewmayer 04:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 21) Theo  (Talk) 20:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) Keep Dan100 13:31, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) Keep. Wikipedia isn't here to improve other sites' Google rankings. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:34, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) Keep. Alereon 00:58, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fewer than 100 edits. Possible sockpuppet. --Slowking Man 00:26, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Keep Link spam is not being edited out fast enough hike395 01:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep for the reasons stated by other Wikipedians. JoaoRicardo 01:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep. A reference work that describes the objects to which it links should try hard not to disturb the context those objects reside in.  This is along the lines of the observer observing atypical behavior and attributing it to the object as normal because this is what is observed.  By altering the PageRank of the sites we link to, we affect the context of those sites by altering the traffic through them.  Let us observe but not influence. Courtland 03:30, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep. Mikkalai 21:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Keep. Wikipedia's presence on the Internet is getting ever more heavy, and I am uncomfortable with allowing Wikipedia, an NPOV encyclopedia and reference source, to boost specific sites. Sites should stand on their own. —Lowellian (talk) 08:06, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Keep. Removes a reason for spammers to target us. Lan3y - Talk 15:58, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Keep. Pjacobi 16:47, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * 8) Keep. More appropriate for an encyclopaedia to try to comment on the world and only to change it indirectly. Also agree with regard to effect on linkspammers. Dbiv 23:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongly Keep--Trichnosis 14:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments

 * (response to DavidWBrooks' vote)
 * Which breaking the links with rel=nofollow won't stop. Jordi·✆ 02:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * This does not "break" the links in any way, they work just fine. It merely removes one very significant incentive for link spamming, especially automated industrial-scale link spamming by spambots as we have recently experienced; it does not and cannot remove all incentives to do so. -- Curps 03:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It "breaks" how link relationships work. 'The linked document contains "nofollow" information for the current document'. So what is "nofollow" information? Rel=nofollow is a typical hack which should never be implemented: it runs counter to the standard and is implemented by a single party (google), not a standards body. It's no better than <blink> or <marquee>. Jordi·✆ 03:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What Google does, in this area, is more of a std than a stds body can impose. --Jerzy(t) 03:57, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * It's a hack which for once does not break any standards, but it's still a hack. And your argument is the same one Netscape used for <blink>, Microsoft for <marquee>, etc.. Look where that got us now!
 * Technically, rev=nofollow would maybe make sense to some ('the current document contains 'nofollow' information for the linked document'), but rel=nofollow is absolute nonsense. In either case it is not appropriate imho. Linkspammers should be dealt with in other ways than crippling search engine functionality. Jordi·✆ 04:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * How does using a feature which Google themselves implemented cripple the functionality of Google's own search engine? -- Curps 05:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm presuming that the comment relates to search engines other than google and other web tools. Thryduulf 07:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to suggest that these other search engines' functionality will be "crippled" by this proprietary Google tag. HTML parsers just ignore tags they don't understand.  Yahoo's search engine technology won't crash and burn when it encounters a "nofollow". -- Curps 07:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yahoo and MSN Search will also support "nofollow" . So if this isn't standard yet it very soon will be. It will not "break" links or "cripple" search engines. -- Curps 14:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with DavidWBrooks that there seem to be a quite a few unnecessary and low quality external links on the Wikipedia—especially in some of the less-traveled area where a link on the Wikipedia might have a much greater effect upon a website's PageRank when searching under that topic. I've also seen quite a few questionable links in articles on different cities, especially those that are tourist destinations. However I am not yet convinced that the nofollow tag is the appropriate or best solution to the problem. Even with the nofollow tag, the Wikipedia will still get link spam because they also want people to visit their websites and see the advertising on the websites. They may also be trying to get people to visit websites that try to do stealth spyware installations. The solution may end up being something more mundane and tedious, such as a special Wikipedia Link Patrol to try to weed out link spam and low quality links, plus questionable and inappropriate external links. Blank <font color= 	#F88017>Verse <font color=#2554C7> <font color=#F660AB>∅  10:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Having unpaid manual labor against paid automatic labor is a losing proposition. Stirling Newberry 15:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) [Vote copied, & comment & responses moved from Remove votes by Jerzy(t) 22:30, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)] Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 01:07, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC) The pros vastly outweigh the cons.
 * If the pros vastly outweigh the cons, did you mean to vote in the other section? silsor 02:29, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * The pros of removing it, sorry for being vague. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:30, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * The Russian spambot that hammered us only a few days ago isn't enough of a con? Curps 04:39, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The spambot you point out spammed Wikipedia while the nofollow tag was in use (and had been for some time). What exactly do you think it accomplishes with regards to spambots when the very example you gave shows that it had no effect at all. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:22, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * I think "nofollow" was only added in the latest very recent Mediawiki release. The spambot operator was likely unaware that we recently started using "nofollow". -- Curps 05:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It was added on 2005-01-19 and the bot started spamming on 2005-01-31 which as I understand it was the first page to be spammed, correct? —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:40, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * The PHP page was first attacked January 31 2005, and it was probably the first page (other pages attacked were mostly linked from it; the bot followed links). -- Curps 05:47, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (Responding to Curps) I was referring to the fact that Google released this to the public recently, and we do not really know how spammers will react to it yet. - RedWordSmith 04:07, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm in favor of keeping nofollow . First of all, I'd like to refute the argument, made by Anárion and probably agreed with by others, that this violates standards.  This is sanctioned by the W3.  For proof, see W3 information on rel.  This says that additional types,(i.e. nofollow and others) are allowed, but that a profile should be defined.  Luckily, it has been!  See the draft standard linked to by Google's blog post.
 * Note: I strongly recommend that MediaWiki uses this profile system. This means it should automatically implement a profile.  It should do so in the manner detailed in my prior link to W3's profile information.  This only need by done for the pages that have external links.  But, it might be easier just to do it for all pages, which would be fine.

 * However, if Mediawiki does not implement this, it will not affect my vote against removing the feature. (This is because I don't want to have unfair conditions not specified in the proposal).

Above I have described why it can be used. We should use it because it will eventually completely eliminate rankings-based spam linking by most expert spammers. I believe there will probably originally be a small group of spammers that seek revenge by massively vandalizing Wikipedia pages. However, given that this is "unpaid labor", eventually the tide will subside. The benefits to our links will be worth the wait. There is one last caveat. Even after that vandalism trend ends, we should remember that there will still be some spamming by those who simply want visibility, regardless of rankings advancement. I believe this is probably a smaller portion of the spam. The obvious cost to the "nofollow" procedure will be the sacrifice of gains in Google rankings for "good sites" because of links from Wikipedia. Compared to the improvement in Wikipedia external links' quality, this will be less important. We must remember that these external sites should be inherently valuable, and will therefore be linked to by enough non-wiki authors. If they are not valuable, they should not be linked to! Superm401 00:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll bite. Especially what is a nofollow relationship to the parent document? If I have a link <a href="foo.bar" rel="nofollow">, what I am telling the User Agent is that the foo.bar document has a nofollow relationship to the current document, so if I go there I get extra information (nofollow information) about where I am now. This is by analogy of existing link relationships like rel=next (the linked document is next in a series to which the current document also belongs), rel=copyright (the linked document has copyright information for the current document), or rel='shortcut icon' (the linked document is a shortcut icon for the current document). 'nofollow' is not a rel relationship, as the point of the attribute is that the link is not followed. In actuality rel=nofollow is telling the user agent that there should be no link from the linked document to the current document!
 * If done at all, it should be done in other ways, such as a rev (reverse) relationship: rev=nofollow tells the user agent 'the linked document is a 'nofollow' for the current document'. My claim it violates the standard is because of this misinterpretation of what a 'rel' relationship is. Google has a nice idea and they should be commended for trying to make it parse well instead of inventing something dreadfull like <nofollow />, but it is not standards compliant as the attribute is semantically meaningless. Jordi·✆ 13:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * First, I disagree that W3-supported tags and attributes have to be human-readable, as you imply. For an example, consider  the BDO tag?  What's a BDO?  Well, you don't know until you read the definition.  And that's okay, because human readers should look at the definition before implementing it in a program.  There are also rel attributes that you might not understand without knowing the definition as well.  What does it mean to have a "contents" relationship?  It means that the page is a Table of Contents.  Someone might need to look that up, but the W3 doesn't care.  That's why they have references.  A rel nofollow relationship makes sense as well, with a definition.  A "nofollow" relationship signifies that the page linked to should not be advanced in search engine rankings through this link.  The pages are related in that users will go between, but search engines will not go.  This has a clear analogy with the "next" relationship.  That signifies a page that human users will probably follow the link to.  It also tells user-agents that it might be beneficial to pre-load the page.  That establishes a precedent for rel relationships that only computers need consider.  I disagree that "rel=nofollow" tells the user-agent that there should be no link.  Attributes mean only what their definition says they mean, and the definition clearly doesn't say that.

 * It should NOT be a "rev" relationship. According to the W3, "rev = link-types [CI]

This attribute is used to describe a reverse link from the anchor specified by the href attribute to the current document. The value of this attribute is a space-separated list of link types."
 * When we create a link with a rev attribute, we are not referring to a "link from the anchor specified by the href to the current document." That would mean the page linked to links back.  We have no way of guaranteeing that and don't care if it's true.  W3 defines rel as follows:

"rel = link-types [CI]   This attribute describes the relationship from the current document to the anchor specified by the href attribute. The value of this attribute is a space-separated list of link types."
 * We are referring to "a relationship from the current document to the anchor." Specifically, we are saying that the link is related in that we want users to follow the link but don't want search engines to advance the page by following the link and adding ranking because of it. Superm401 16:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Are you seriously arguing against employing a 100% effective method of combating Googlebombing because you don't like the syntax?

 * Like nearly all uses of <tt>rel</tt>, this hack makes little semantic sense—just like the <tt>meta</tt> element, defined only after the various browser implementations became so ubiquitous that there was no way around it, or <tt>br</tt>, which defines presentation rather than context. Compared to the utter crap that's resulted from over a decade of standards being descriptive, rather than prescriptive, this is pretty benign.

 * The fact is, all uses of <tt>rel</tt> are special exceptions, to be handled on a case-by-case basis by user agents, where applicable. The attribute has always been vaguely defined as a catch-all for miscellaneous metadata, which the W3C acknowledges today in intentionally leaving it open to individual implementations.

 * For my part, I'm tickled pink that Google has taken responsibility for the problem they inadvertently created and provided the community with a solution. What's more, it doesn't break the standard, and I don't think we could ask for much more.

 * And that's not even the point.

 * The English Wikipedia deciding that it's going to drop support for this solution isn't going to change the fact that it's the one everyone else is adopting. No, it won't stop linkspam, but it will stop one particularly prevalent form of linkspam, and that's better than nothing.  Contrary to what others have said, this will not adversely affect the ranking of any site linked to in an article, but rather, it won't affect it at all.  I happen to think that a wise policy, irrespective of the linkspam problem.

 * But that's just my opinion. You obviously don't agree.  ADH (t&m) 17:07, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I am opposed to it primarily because it won't stop any link spam, and it has a huge disadvantage to links which would provide valid information. That its syntax is meaningless is just another con. Jordi·✆ 18:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Spam and POV linking are two things we can do without. The hidden argument here is whether editors should use Wikipedia's link equity to push sites they like. The answer should be "no", wikipedia's link equity is the result of the common effort and should not be exploitable by individual editors. Remove nofollow and every new link becomes suspect, and we have enough linking of questionable sites as it is. If you think a site is good, link to it from your own page. Stirling Newberry 19:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * A large number of articles on WP have only 1-3 people watching them, and there is no reason to believe that they are not going to push one site over another based on their POV. I dont think WP should be in the business of promoting good site, as that would be the editors POV as mentioned by number of people above. The problem of link spammers will only keep getting worse as WP expands at the rate it does and becomes more and more visible. kaal 21:48, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In response to "dont see why we should be pushing article editors POV about which sites are good or bad". Why should we be seen as pushing anything?  We are just doing wikipedia.  It is google that is assigning weights.  We should operate true to our purposes, google and other users on the internet are responsible for their own actions and usage of wikipedia.  They use us at their own risk.  The should read the disclaimers.--Silverback 12:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I really don't understand and follow all the HTML/W3 discussion above. But what seems clear to me is that having NOFOLLOW will NOT discourage spam-link-bots since the vandalism they add will very quickly be reversed by the human editors of wikipedia BEFORE any Google crawler will follow the links they created.  Don't the Google crawlers only do it on a weekly or monthly basis and isn't vandalism cleaned up on an hourly or at most daily basis by all the unpaid labor on Wikipedia?  So spam-link-robots WILL NOT get any Google Page Rank boost from their vandalism - so not having NOFOLLOW will not encourage them (too many negatives, but I think I got it right).  The only gain they get is that somebody might click on the link before we revert it.  So, somebody, please tell me what is wrong with this argument (as if I have to ask for feedback on this page). FrankH 18:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Although we're fond of touting our editing process as a revolutionary and miraculously effective idea, the fact is, it's not infallible. Even blatant vandalism sometimes slips through the cracks, and once it makes its way past Special:Recentchanges it can stay in an article for weeks.  Linkspam is even harder to catch, as the vast majority of it is not the work of malicious spambots, but real people adding their sites to articles where it's often overlooked as relevant to the topic (as anyone who has IRC on his watchlist can attest).  All nofollow does is make Wikipedia a neutral party, irrelevant in the eyes of search engine ranking systems.  Removing the attribute is to say that we should take an active role in boosting the rankings of certain sites, and even if that weren't open to abuse (by, say, allowing anyone to introduce external links into article text, or something silly like that), it's not a policy I think we should adopt.  ADH (t&m) 23:25, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know how often Google crawls Wikipedia, but in general Google crawls high-ranked sites every day. Stephen Turner 19:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Another idea: Could the software that generates the HTML from the a pages source code insert the NOFOLLOW attributes for links UNTIL the page has not been edited for some period of time (like a day?)  Then any spam-links inserted by robots would not have any effect until the page is stable for a day.  Thus the human editors would have a day to revert edits.  In fact links inserted by humans would also have NOFOLLOW for a day to allow other humans a day to remove inappropriate or POV links.  Is this suggestion technologically possible?  Will it help? -- FrankH 21:04, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's possible and was brought up on one of the mailing lists, but, of course, is up to the developers. --Slowking Man 07:44, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes [DelayAction] could be a good compromise. This approach assumes that spam links do get cleaned up fairly soon after being added. On wikipedia this a reasonable assumption. You suggest switching to nofollow for all links on the page, after any edit to the page, for a period of a day. Even better would be if the software could somehow time it for each link, i.e. when link is added a timestamp is kept somewhere, and when that individual link has been left on the page for a period, it drops the rel=nofollow attribute. Not sure if this is technically feasible though. -- Nojer2 21:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if it is feasible, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. It soulds like a recipe for an unwanted level of complexity. I'm all for adding nofollow, but if we don't do it for all external links, I'd prefer not doing it at all rather than something like this that would make the system as a whole more complex. --Improv 23:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many good arguments here, on both sides, but my viewpoint is simply that Wikipedia is a valuable source of good links, and although we're not obligated to share that value through search engines, it is a great opportunity for us to contribute further to the community we serve. Despite our high pagerank we don't make or break any one site — but just as we're willing to fight vandalism rather than moderate edits, I think it's worth it to fight linkspam rather than withdraw our contributions.

 * I also don't believe the continuing linkspam since nofollow was turned on is an ephemeral phenomenon. Spammers aren't technical wizzes, don't have a strong community, and don't pay attention very well. No matter what "gets out", we will continue getting linkspam — it's not revenge, it's just ignorance.

 * Finally, I think there are a number of excellent compromises between the two extreme all-or-none viewpoints above. The most promising of these is to tag only young links with nofollow. This negatively impacts caching, but it would probably suffice to update the tags only when a page is edited — then, at least, we can force a refresh if necessary. This is a simple technical solution that could easily be implemented and deployed in only a short time, and I don't think we should withdraw from the community in the interim.

 * Thanks for listening. Deco 03:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have taken the liberty of sending an email to some friends I have in Google asking them to either contribute to the discussion, or to consider doing something on their end to deal with how effective linkspam is at affecting pagerank on Wikis. Depending on what they decide, nofollow might not actually affect pagerank regardless of nofollow. --Improv 19:33, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The effect of external links from Wikipedia on PageRank is how I came to be here in the first place. (What I thought was an obscure article that I had published elsewhere on the web consistently came out at the top of Google searches.  I eventually traced the effect to the fact that my article had been listed as a  reference by some Wikipedia articles.) I'm sure that I'm not the first and I'd like to think that I was not the last person to start contributing to Wikipedia because of this. (And, mindful of the effect, I've neutered my share of external links in advertising articles with <nowiki>...&lt/nowiki&gt since coming here, too.) Furthermore, Google is shooting itself in the foot with this one.  Wikipedia and its siblings are exactly the sorts of sources of good-quality hyperlinking to the rest of the world wide web that it doesn't want to lose. If Google wants to solve this problem, then it should provide Wikipedia editors with search tools to locate spam hyperlinks easily, so that they can edit them out, rather than a tool that effectively removes all of the good that Wikipedia does for Google (which outweighs the bad by a wide margin, in my estimation).  Uncle G 16:42, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

 * A question, not relevant to my vote, just idle curiosity: Does the Google boost from a Wikipedia ext link depend on which Wikipedia article includes the link? Wikipedia as a whole has a high page rank but some articles are almost never visited.  Does Google's algorithm take account of the number of visits to that particular article? JamesMLane 01:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In vote #70 of the "Remove NoFollow" votes, user:AlexR assumes it is not possible for "a nofollow [to] be added to links that are new for a few days or a week". Maybe i missed something by not following this discussion closely enough:
 * The current software does indeed impose an all-or-none decision on each Wiki, e.g. on en:, and that decision is what the vote is on.
 * However, the portion of the software that renders the wiki markup into an HTML page knows when the page was last edited. although it doesn't currently know when the ext lks were last changed, that may be a SMOP that could be implemented much as Alex would like, in a future release.
 * --Jerzy(t) 03:31, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
 * This has come up many times — I brought it up some time ago on meta. It seems like a natural solution. If I were to design it, it would go something like this:
 * Create a table LinkLastModified mapping each externally linked URL in an article to its last-modified date/time. Whenever a page is updated, remove any URLs from LinkLastModified no longer present in the article, and add any new URLs not present in LinkLastModified and assign them the current time. When initially rendering, compare these times against the current time to determine whether to include nofollow. When determining whether or not to rerender a cached version, simply find the oldest link in LinkLastModified which was below the threshold at the time the cached version was rendered, and determine if it is above the threshold now. If not, the cached version is still up-to-date. If this results in too-frequent re-renderings, we can simply have it update on edit, which at least allows users to force an update if necessary.
 * The only question being who would implement all this. :-) Deco 07:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition to arguments I made in other places, as well as the other arguments here, I would like us to give Google a little slap in the face. They've become too accustomed to saying "jump!" and everyone else saying "how high?" (before long, they'll get the same big head that Microsoft has).  Instead, we just need to do what's right for the Wikipedia and the web community.  We haven't found it _that_ difficult to manage our links here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 11:18, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Stevie, mind telling us what you're talking about? I don't understand what you mean by them bossing around the internet community. --Improv 15:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's another argument for removing nofollow: we depend on Google traffic for a large proportion of our readers, and from them comes new editors. Of course nofollow doesn't change this, but the question is, is it right for us to take the benefits of our Pagerank without giving in return? How many people here would willingly give up our Pagerank altogether? We can say we want to remain separate from Google, but in truth we have a certain debt to pay. Deco 08:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Pagerank is not currency, and we shouldn't feel obliged to provide benefits to people that are propspective editors. There is no debt. In any case, with luck, google has already cut wikipedia out of contributing to pagerank, regardless of this discussion. --Improv 15:38, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, when I think about it this particular argument doesn't really make sense anyway — it's not like we asked Google to direct traffic to us. Still, it just seems like a nice thing to do to give value to searchers in return. Deco 23:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia:Nofollow/Vote


text:
Talk:Kale

Kale in Scandinavia
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Frost
"Kale can become sweeter in taste after a heavy frost."

Sweeter than what? Is kale harvested before the frosts anywhere? Here in Germany at least, kale is not considered ready for harvest until it has gone through at least one frost. --91.34.39.13 (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

"Kale is high in oxalic acid"
I don't think that's correct. The article oxalic acid says it's very low. --Chaptagai (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Russian kale
This article starts by stating that kale is a form of Brassica oleracea, but then it also covers Russian kale, which is B napus var pabularia. We need to deal with this conflict, either by broadening the lead para to cover both, or by separating the two into different articles. Which would be better? Richard New Forest (talk) 09:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Biennial plant
it is. You can harvest leaves and stem the first year, the plant is blooming and ripening seeds the second year. I have corrected that. Wolfgang Kaul (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Kale


text:
Sam Ricketts

Samuel Derek Ricketts (born 11 October 1981) is a professional football coach and former player.

As a player, his favoured position was at full back, where he was able to play either side as well as being able to operate at the centre of defence. He played over 100 games for Swansea City before playing Premier League football for both Hull City and Bolton Wanderers. He left Bolton in 2013 and captained Wolverhampton Wanderers to the League One title with a record points total. Furthermore, he represented Wales at international level, making over 50 appearances for the national team.

Early life
Ricketts was born in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. His family is highly involved in equestrianism. His father is the 1978 world showjumping champion Derek Ricketts, later performance manager of the UK showjumping team from 2002 to 2010, and his uncle is the former National Hunt champion jockey John Francome. As a teenager, Ricketts himself was a keen rider until prioritising football.

Early career
Ricketts began his career at Oxford United, making his first team debut on 8 October 2000 in a 2–1 Second Division defeat at rivals Swindon Town. He played 48 total games and scored once, in a 2–0 home win over Southend United on 22 September 2001.

In 2002 he was loaned to Nuneaton Borough of the Football Conference. On 26 December, he was sent off in the 25th minute of a 2–1 home loss to Burton Albion for a foul on John Burns. In the last of his 11 games for Nuneaton, he scored the equaliser in a 1–1 home draw with leaders Yeovil Town on 25 January 2003.

He was released from his professional contract to sign for Conference side Telford United in the summer of 2003. His form for Telford led him to be selected for the England non-League XI that season. On 6 April 2004, he scored the only goal of a win against Shropshire rivals Shrewsbury Town at the New Bucks Head.

Swansea City
Telford United went out of business at the end of the 2003–04 season, meaning Ricketts' contract was annulled. Swansea manager Kenny Jackett offered him a return to league football though, and he joined Swansea City on a two-year deal on 27 May 2004.

He helped the team to promotion from League Two in his first season, during which he was selected in the division's PFA Team of the Year. At the end of the campaign he was rewarded for his performances with a new improved contract. His second season saw the team reach the League One Play-off Final, but Ricketts was part of the team that lost on penalties to Barnsley.

Hull City
After 103 appearances in total for Swansea, Ricketts moved to Championship club Hull City on 14 July 2006 on a three-year contract. Hull triggered his release clause by paying £300,000. He started every minute of Hull's first ten games but sustained a broken cheekbone in the tenth game – a win against Hartlepool United – that required an operation, thereby ruling him out for several weeks. He made 45 appearances during the season, and scored his only goal for Hull on 31 March 2007, in a 4–0 home win over Southend United.

The defender was part of the Hull team that won promotion to the Premier League for the first time in the club's history at the end of the 2007–08 season; he played in their Championship play-off final victory over Bristol City. Hull manager Phil Brown had stated in advance of this that he wanted to extend Ricketts' contract due to his performances.

Ricketts made 29 league appearances for the Tigers in their inaugural top-flight campaign, as they narrowly avoided relegation on the final day of the season. Following this, he entered into talks regarding a new deal with the club, but had been linked to other Premier League clubs.

Bolton Wanderers
On 25 July 2009, fellow Premier League club Bolton Wanderers confirmed Ricketts had signed a three-year deal with them for an undisclosed fee. He made his debut in a 1–0 defeat to Sunderland on 15 August and went on to play in every defensive position for the club.

In February 2011 he suffered a snapped Achilles tendon during an FA Cup replay against Wigan Athletic, which put him out of first team contention until the end of the year. He made his return on New Year's Eve 2011, where he also scored his first Bolton goal, in a 1–1 draw against his future club Wolverhampton Wanderers. Ricketts' contract expired at the end of the 2011–12 season but, despite Bolton being relegated from the Premier League, he signed a new two-year deal with the club in the summer of 2012. On 4 July 2013, after a season in which the team failed to make an instant return to the top flight, Bolton confirmed that his contract had been cancelled by mutual agreement.

He later expressed his disappointment at leaving Bolton Wanderers.

Wolverhampton Wanderers
On the same day as his exit from Bolton, Ricketts joined Wolverhampton Wanderers of League One as a free agent in a two-year deal, reuniting with his former Swansea manager Kenny Jackett. Having been appointed club captain, he made his debut on 3 August 2013 in a goalless draw at Preston North End. Ricketts was a regular member of the Wolves team that won the League One title that season with a record 103 points. He scored his first goal for the club in a 6–4 win against Rotherham United on 18 April 2014.

Back in the Championship, Ricketts seldom featured for Wolves, despite remaining club captain, and in January 2015 was made available for loan. Soon after he took on a coaching role at the club, but on 21 March 2015, left to join League One promotion contenders Swindon Town on loan for the remainder of the season. He helped the club to the play-off final, scoring an equaliser in the semi-final at Sheffield United, but the Robins lost the Wembley final 4–0 to Preston, in which Ricketts came on as an early substitute.

On 17 June 2015 it was announced that his contract with Wolves will not be renewed.

Coventry City
Ricketts signed for Coventry City on 6 July 2015 signing a one-year deal with the club. In July 2016 his contract was extended until the end of the 2016–17 season. On 16 November 2016, he was forced to retire from football because of a knee injury.

International career
Although born in England, Ricketts was eligible for the Wales national football team due to a Welsh grandmother. He made his international debut for Wales on 9 February 2005 in a friendly against Hungary that was John Toshack's first game in charge after his return as manager. On 6 September 2013, he reached the milestone of 50 caps in a 2–1 loss away to Macedonia in 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification.

Wrexham
After his retirement from playing, Ricketts integrated into coaching, inaugurally spending a week working alongside Brendan Rodgers's backroom staff at Scottish Premiership champions Celtic. Rodgers then advised Ricketts to begin coaching at academy level to gain experience, with the latter taking his advice and joined the academy coaching set-up at his former side Wolverhampton Wanderers in 2017.

A year into his role, Ricketts left to become the first team manager of National League club Wrexham, signing a three-year contract, beginning on 2 May 2018. On his managerial debut, his team won 1–0 at Dover Athletic. During his brief spell in charge, Ricketts guided Wrexham to 13 victories out of a possible 23, with his side constantly being in the running to gain promotion to the Football League throughout his tenure.

On 1 December 2018, he was told by club officials to stay away from their FA Cup second round match against Newport County, amid speculation that he was poised to be appointed the new manager of League One side Shrewsbury Town, a local rival. With compensation agreed, he was subsequently appointed their manager days later; Wrexham were sat fourth in the table when he left.

Shrewsbury Town
On 3 December 2018, Ricketts was appointed manager of Shrewsbury on a 2$1/2$-year contract, leaving a Wrexham side fourth in the table. Two days later in his first match, Shrewsbury won 2–1 against Walsall to reach the third round of the EFL Trophy; he was the first manager to win on his Shrewsbury debut since Graham Turner in 2010. He brought in eight players in the January 2019 transfer window including Tyrese Campbell, Ro-Shaun Williams and Scott Golbourne. In early 2019, Ricketts lead the club to the fourth round of the FA Cup. The club's cup run ended at the hands of rivals, and one of Ricketts' former clubs, Wolverhampton Wanderers. Town were 2–0 up in the original tie at New Meadow with just under 20 minutes to play, but late goals from Raúl Jiménez and Matt Doherty took the tie to a replay at Molineux. Ricketts' Shrewsbury side went 2–1 up in the replay, only to eventually lose 3–2. A 1–1 draw away at Coventry City on 28 April mathematically secured League One survival for Ricketts and the club. In the summer of 2019, Ricketts made more notable signings to strengthen the squad for the upcoming 2019–20 season, bringing in players such as Jason Cummings from Nottingham Forest, Sean Goss from Queens Park Rangers, Donald Love from Sunderland, Ethan Ebanks-Landell from Wolves and Aaron Pierre from Northampton Town. Ricketts started the season with a 1–0 win at home to Portsmouth on 4 August, with loanee Ryan Giles scoring the goal. During the 2019–20 season, Ricketts lead the club to the fourth round of the FA Cup for the second time during his management spell, defeating Bradford City, Mansfield Town and Bristol City along the way. The fourth round would see Ricketts and his Shrewsbury side host Premier League leaders and European and World champions Liverpool, where Shrewsbury came from 0–2 down to draw 2–2 with 2 goals from substitute Jason Cummings, forcing a replay at Anfield. In the replay, Shrewsbury fell short after a Shaun Whalley goal was disallowed by VAR for offside and an own goal from Ro-Shaun Williams saw the hosts win 1–0. This cup run brought repercussions, however, as Ricketts and the club went 10 league games without a win between December 2019 and February 2020. A 2–0 home defeat to Accrington Stanley on 11 February 2020 followed by another 2–0 defeat away at Portsmouth on 15 February put Ricketts' job under severe pressure. The winless run ended a week later on 22 February after a 1–0 win at home to Doncaster Rovers. On 14 March 2020, Ricketts and his Shrewsbury side were scheduled to take on top-of-the-table Coventry City at St Andrew's, however the match was postponed due to the outbreak of COVID-19. Due to the pandemic, the 2019–20 League One season was cut short and it was decided that final league positions would be based on a points-per-game basis. This saw the club finish 15th in the final table.

With first-team midfielder Josh Laurent leaving for Championship club Reading, Ricketts looked to strengthen his Shrewsbury squad again in the summer of 2020. The departure of Irish goalkeeper Joe Murphy also meant Ricketts only had 1 senior goalkeeper. On 3 August, Ricketts managed to get 3 deals over the line, bringing in striker Rekeil Pyke from Huddersfield Town and promising Northern Irish winger Josh Daniels from Glenavon, as well as the loan signing of young midfielder Scott High, also from Huddersfield Town. The club played their first pre-season friendly of the season on 11 August, beating Cymru Premier side Bala Town 3–0 at Telford United's New Bucks Head. Two days later on 13 August, defender Omar Beckles rejected a new contract and subsequently also left the club, leaving a gap in Ricketts' defence. On 18 August, Ricketts won his second pre-season friendly of the season, defeating Nuneaton Borough 3–1 at home. This was followed by a defeat 0–1 home defeat to rivals Walsall on 21 August, a 5–1 defeat away at Stoke City on 25 August and a 1–0 win over Wolverhampton Wanderers U23, also on 25 August. On 28 August, Ricketts managed to strengthen his defence with the loan signing of United States U20 international Marlon Fossey from Fulham. The club's final pre-season friendly took place on 29 August, a 2–1 win away at Premier League club Burnley. On 2 September, Ricketts managed to fill the goalkeeper void, bringing in Montenegro international Matija Sarkic on loan from Wolverhampton Wanderers.

Ricketts and the team had a steady but rocky start to the 2020–21 League One season, drawing 3 and losing 1 of their first 4 played games. Ricketts' first win of the season came on 17 October when a stoppage time winner from new signing Leon Clarke confirmed a 1–0 win at AFC Wimbledon. Four consecutive defeats then followed, including a 5–1 defeat away at Peterborough United on 31 October. Two more draws and another defeat later and the club found themselves in the relegation zone and only off the bottom of the table on goal difference. A 2–2 draw at Milton Keynes Dons, in which The Shrews led 2–0, on 24 November turned out to be the last straw as Ricketts and assistant manager Dean Whitehead were relieved of their duties a day later on 25 November. The club sat 23rd in League One after 13 league games, gaining only 9 points from a possible 39.

Personal life
After leaving Shrewsbury Town in November 2020, Ricketts opened a builder's merchant.

As a player
Swansea City
 * Football League Two third-place promotion: 2004–05
 * Football League Trophy: 2005–06

Hull City
 * Football League Championship play-offs: 2008

Wolverhampton Wanderers
 * Football League One: 2013–14

Individual
 * PFA Team of the Year: 2004–05 League Two, 2013–14 League One

As a manager
Individual
 * National League Manager of the Month: October 2018

title: Sam Ricketts


text:
Alex Lester

Alexander Norman Charles Lester (born 11 May 1956) is a British broadcaster. He presented the weekday overnight/early-morning programme on BBC Radio 2 from 1992 until 2014. From October 2014 until January 2017, he presented the midnight to 3am programme every Friday, Saturday and Sunday. He also temporarily replaced Russell Brand on Saturday evenings in late 2008, between 9 and 11pm, following Brand's resignation over his infamous prank calls row.

Early life and career
A doctor's son, Lester was educated at Denstone College, and worked in a variety of jobs (including at Dudley Zoo, in a pub, and as a civil service clerk), before he began his broadcasting career in 1977 for BBC local radio stations. He joined Radio Aire in Leeds in 1981.

Later, he worked for other radio stations in the commercial sector. These included Radio Tees, based in Stockton-on-Tees, where he worked from 1983 until 1986. At Radio Tees, on joining, he narrowly avoided an attempt by Canadian programme controller Donald Cline to rechristen him "Red" Lester. Lester went on to present, amongst others, the weekday lunchtime show and a specialist blues music programme there.

In 1986, he returned to the BBC, presenting the breakfast show (indeed, the first show) on the newly opened BBC Essex based in Chelmsford. Lester joined Radio 2 in 1987 as an announcer and newsreader. He also presented the night-time show on a rota basis. In April 1992 he was given the early-morning show permanently.

'The Best Time of the Day' and beyond
Lester kept UK truckers and other night-shift workers awake with his weird and strange observations. The meaningless but catchy show slogans are 'SCOF' (Swirling Cesspool of Filth) and 'Slap My Top' (thought to be a variation on the music hall phrase 'slap my thigh' – but reserved exclusively for people with bald heads) and listeners have marketed the show by writing the phrase in the dirt on the backs of trucks and vans. A limited-edition range of T-shirts, with the slogan written in Cantonese, was developed by a listener. Lester awarded these to people who came up with the most innovative uses of the slogan – winners included a local radio reporter who got the expression into a story; a man who wrote and recorded a song with the slogan as its title; a mystery girl, for placing an ad for Lester's show in the small ads section of a local newspaper and a man who developed a website which remains a communal meeting point for the programme's listeners, and is listed in the External Links section below. As well as T-shirts, another listener produced a range of glow-in-the-dark Alex Lester wristbands, which were given away as prizes on the show. The new phrase for the 2010–2011 Truck Writing Season was 'WALLOP' (We're Alex Lester's Lovely Overnight People), and in 2013 the slogan 'ALAN' was introduced (Alex Lester at Night).

Despite being broadcast in an overnight timeslot, Lester prided himself on calling his programme 'The Best Time of the Day'. As one of the longest-serving broadcasters on the network, he was occasionally heard on Radio 2 during the daytime when regular presenters were away.

The programme was broadcast from 4am until 6:30am until December 1992, and from 3am to 5am during 1993. For 16 years, starting in January 1994, the programme began at 3am and finished at 6am, until it was rescheduled in 2010 after changes to the Radio 2 morning schedule. It was then broadcast from 2am to 5am every weekday. With the introduction of After Midnight on Radio 2 in October 2014, the show was broadcast from 12am to 3am from Fridays to Sundays. Alex shared the After Midnight slot with Janice Long, with Long presenting Monday - Thursday, and Lester on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The show was cancelled in January 2017 due to Radio 2 cutting costs.

Alex had hosted a weekly show on BBC Radio Oxford from 2015 till 2017, broadcasting between 1pm and 4pm on Fridays.

Between February and June 2017 he also hosted a four-hour Sunday evening show on BBC Radio Kent but had to relinquish this due to other commitments, primarily resulting from becoming the new host of the breakfast show on BBC Radio WM from Monday 20 March 2017.

Lester could also be heard from April 2017 to June 2017 on Thames Radio's overnight shift. It is believed that the voice parts were 'Tracked' (recorded in advance and inserted between the records in real time). He also hosted the late night show on BBC across the West Midlands local radio stations until February 2020, from 10pm on Saturday night until 1am on Sunday.

On 4 January 2019, Lester left the breakfast show on BBC Radio WM after nearly two years of broadcasting.

From 10 February 2020, he began presenting the weekday overnight show on Greatest Hits Radio networks across England and Scotland from 1am until 6am, and from September 2020, his shows were (initially the last hour only) also heard on Greatest Hits South Wales. He also presented the Weekend Anthems show on a Saturday afternoon from 4pm until February 2022. From 8 June 2020, he permanently moved to the late night show 10pm-1am. From 3 January 2021, Alex moved back to 1am-6am, and from 8 January 2022 Alex temporarily replaced the late Janice Long on Saturday afternoons 1pm-4pm

Personal life
Lester has homes in Hastings and Wednesbury. For nearly 10 years he lived aboard a 60-foot traditional stern canal boat (which he nicknamed The Blue Pig) during the week, while presenting his show from the BBC's Pebble Mill Studios and then The Mailbox in Birmingham. He also has a restored cottage as a third home in the Normandy region of France.

Obscure sports are another passion. Over the years Lester has participated in Extreme Downhill Cheese Rolling, the Yorkshire Celery Wrestling Finals and achieved a creditable 9th-place finish at the 2006 World Bog Snorkelling Championship.

In December 2010 Lester announced his engagement to his longtime partner Kerry, who is also known as "The Dark Lady". They married on 3 December 2011. Edwina Hayes, a singer-songwriter whose music had been featured on Lester's show, performed at the ceremony. Alex is a stepfather to Kerry's two adult children, Jamie and Ella, from a previous relationship.

title: Alex Lester


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Paul Show

 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Paul Show
A radio show noone heard about on a radio station noone heard about, the articles creator coming up with lots of vfd food. -- Egil 09:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. TheCoffee 09:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, Paul Station yields some 4600 hits on Google but none of them as far as I can see deals with this radio station. Inter 10:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Utter crap. -R. fiend 18:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete CDC   (talk)  19:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability presented and author's antics erase any benefit of the doubt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Plus, there is no information on which areas around the world it is broadcast in. Zzyzx11 22:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, evidence of notability not presented. By the way, Google seems to know of quite a few "The Paul Shows", none notable, yet all more notable than this one. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn. GRider\talk 20:04, 14 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:
Category:Irish chronicles

Irish chronicles.

title: Category:Irish chronicles


text:
Talk:Matoya

Tone and merging
It is not references to "happy" and "joy" which are inappropriate for the tone of an encyclopedic, it is things like interjecting "What a woman!" at the end of a paragraph. If you were writing for a term paper, I doubt you would find it appropriate to throw in comments like that.

As for whether you "refuse" to have this character merged -- sorry, you don't have final say. Neither of the two main reasons for giving a fictional character an article separate from the fiction they appear in apply here: Matoya is not a character complex enough to need a separate article to discuss her, and she has not gained any significance outside Final Fantasy I.  There have been playable characters from the Final Fantasy games whose separate articles have been put up for votes by the community and the verdict has been to merge those articles, so your assumption that Matoya must have her own article and you can "refuse" to have it merged is, to put it politely, not well-founded.

title: Talk:Matoya


text:
Adam Schlesinger

Adam Lyons Schlesinger (October 31, 1967 – April 1, 2020) was an American musician, songwriter, composer, and record producer. He was a founding member of the bands Fountains of Wayne, Ivy, and Tinted Windows, and was a key songwriting contributor and producer for Brooklyn-based synth-pop duo Fever High. He also wrote songs for television and film, for which he won three Emmy Awards, a Grammy Award, and the ASCAP Pop Music Award, and was nominated for Academy, Tony, and Golden Globe Awards. He died unexpectedly due to complications of COVID-19 at the age of 52.

Early life
Schlesinger was born in New York City on October 31, 1967, the son of publicist Barbara (née Bernthal) and Stephen Schlesinger. He was a cousin of actor Jon Bernthal and the grandson of musician Murray Bernthal (1911–2010). He was raised in a secular Jewish family in the Manhattan borough of New York City and Montclair, New Jersey, attending Montclair High School in the latter. He received a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Film
In addition to writing and co-producing the title song to That Thing You Do!, Schlesinger composed "Master of the Seas" for Ice Age: Continental Drift, performed by Jennifer Lopez, Peter Dinklage and others. He wrote and produced three songs for Music and Lyrics, and his music has also been featured in films such as Shallow Hal (which he scored with Ivy); Robots; There's Something About Mary; Me, Myself & Irene; Josie and the Pussycats; Scary Movie; Art School Confidential; Fever Pitch; The Manchurian Candidate; Because of Winn-Dixie; Orange County; Two Weeks Notice; and others.

Songs performed by other artists

 * "Our Own World", "I Was There", and "House of Broken Gingerbread" by The Monkees
 * "Just the Girl" and "I'll Take My Chances" for The Click Five
 * "Everybody Loves Music" by Nicki Minaj, Pat Monahan, and Ken Jeong on The Billboard Music Awards
 * "I Guess It's American" for Superdrag (co-written with John Davis)
 * "High School Never Ends" with Bowling for Soup (co-written with Jaret Reddick)
 * "I Am What I Am" for the Jonas Brothers
 * "Hackensack" (Fountains of Wayne cover) by Katy Perry
 * "Perfect Night" by Sarah Silverman and will.i.am
 * "1-800 Clap Your Hands", "Marisol", "You Get Me Through", "Double Talk", and "Jerkface Loser Boyfriend" by Emily Osment
 * "Work to Do" for America
 * Eight songs for Stephen Colbert's television special A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All! performed by Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Feist, John Legend, Willie Nelson, Elvis Costello and Toby Keith (co-written with David Javerbaum)
 * "Barbie Eat a Sandwich" and "My Problems" with Care Bears on Fire
 * "A Little More Us" by Stereo Skyline
 * "Just Like a Rockstar" by The Fresh Beat Band
 * "Stay in Our PJs" by Big Time Rush
 * "I'll Say It" by Kathy Griffin
 * "Text Me Merry Christmas" by Straight No Chaser feat. Kristen Bell
 * "Tantalized", "All Work", "That's So Typical", "Spit It Out", and "Looks Good on Paper" by Fever High

In theatre
Schlesinger and The Daily Show executive producer David Javerbaum co-wrote the songs for the musical theater adaptation of the John Waters film Cry-Baby. Cry-Baby debuted at the La Jolla Playhouse in La Jolla, California in November 2007. Previews for the Broadway run began at the Marquis Theatre on March 15, 2008. Its official opening night was April 24, 2008.

Schlesinger and Javerbaum co-wrote the closing song "I Have Faith in You" for Javerbaum's play An Act of God, which opened on Broadway on May 28, 2015. The song is performed by Jim Parsons, Chris Fitzgerald, and Tim Kazurinsky.

Schlesinger and Sarah Silverman collaborated on a musical titled The Bedwetter, based on her book of the same name. The musical was set for previews to begin on May 9, 2020, at the Atlantic's Linda Gross Theater; opening night was scheduled for Wednesday, June 10, 2020. The dates were later postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The musical ultimately premiered in previews in April 2022. Prior to his death, Schlesinger had been working on the music for a stage adaption of the television series The Nanny.

In television
Schlesinger and Javerbaum co-wrote the opening number of the 2011 Tony Awards ceremony "It's Not Just for Gays Anymore" as well as the opening and closing numbers of the 2012 Tony Awards, "What If Life Were More Like Theater" and "If I Had Time", all performed by Neil Patrick Harris. They wrote "TV Is a Vast Wonderland", the opening number of the 2011 Emmy Awards, performed by Jane Lynch and "The Number in the Middle of the Show", performed at the 2013 Emmy Awards by Neil Patrick Harris, Sarah Silverman, and Nathan Fillion.

Schlesinger's television composing work includes theme music, songs, and/or score for I Love You, America (Hulu), The Maya Rudolph Show (NBC), A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All!, the 2011 and 2012 Tony Awards, the 2011 and 2013 Emmy Awards, Big Time Rush, T.U.F.F. Puppy (Nickelodeon), Good Luck Charlie (Disney Channel), The Fresh Beat Band (Nickelodeon), Kathy (Bravo), Crank Yankers, Wedding Band (TBS), the Billboard Music Awards, Bubble Guppies (Nick Jr.), The Howard Stern Show, Sesame Street, Comedy Central's Night of Too Many Stars, Robert Smigel's cartoons for Saturday Night Live, The Disney Parks Christmas Day Parade with Neil Patrick Harris, the Comedy Awards (Comedy Central), American Dreams, Stephen King's Kingdom Hospital, The In-Laws, The Man Show, Supernoobs, Too Late with Adam Carolla, The Dana Carvey Show, John Leguizamo's House Of Buggin' , My Kind of Town, Johnny Test, and others. His songs have been licensed for use on numerous television series, including Scrubs, The Hills, Gossip Girl, Melrose Place, Felicity, Roswell, and others.

He wrote songs for and was executive music producer of the scripted comedy Crazy Ex-Girlfriend on The CW.

Production work
As a record producer and mixer, he worked with the Monkees, Fever High, Dashboard Confessional, Swirl 360, Tahiti 80, Motion City Soundtrack, Verve Pipe, Robert Plant, America, the Sounds, They Might Be Giants, Fastball, and many other artists, as well as producing or co-producing five Fountains of Wayne albums and six Ivy albums.

Side projects
Schlesinger was also in a side project band called Tinted Windows formed by guitarist James Iha, previously of The Smashing Pumpkins and A Perfect Circle, singer Taylor Hanson of Hanson, and Bun E. Carlos of Cheap Trick, and recorded and toured with them in 2009 and 2010. He also contributed to Iha's second solo album, Look to the Sky (2012).

He was the main composer and producer for Brooklyn-based synth-pop duo Fever High.

Awards and nominations
Schlesinger was nominated for an Academy Award and a Golden Globe Award in 1997 for writing the title track of the Tom Hanks-directed film That Thing You Do!, also contributing two other songs for the film.

Fountains of Wayne was nominated for two Grammy Awards in 2003 for Best New Artist and Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal for "Stacy's Mom".

Schlesinger and David Javerbaum received two Tony nominations in 2008 Best Musical and Best Original Score for the musical Cry-Baby. They also received a 2009 Emmy nomination for Outstanding Music and Lyrics for their song "Much Worse Things", performed by Elvis Costello and Stephen Colbert on the television special and album A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All! The album, co-written by Schlesinger and Javerbaum, and co-produced by Schlesinger and Steven M. Gold, won the 2009 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album.

Schlesinger received a 2013 Daytime Emmy nomination for Outstanding Original Song for his "Elmo the Musical" theme for Sesame Street. He and Molly Boylan received a 2011 Daytime Emmy nomination for the song "I Wonder" from Sesame Street.

Schlesinger and Javerbaum received a 2012 Emmy Award for Outstanding Music And Lyrics for their song "It's Not Just for Gays Anymore", performed by Neil Patrick Harris as the opening number of the 65th Tony Awards telecast; and a 2013 Emmy Award for Outstanding Music And Lyrics for their song "If I Had Time", performed by Neil Patrick Harris as the closing number of the 66th Tony Awards telecast.

Schlesinger received two 2016 Emmy nominations for his work on the CW series Crazy Ex-Girlfriend: Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics for "Settle for Me" (co-written with Rachel Bloom and Jack Dolgen), and Outstanding Main Title Theme (co-written with Rachel Bloom).

He received a 2017 Emmy nomination for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics for "We Tapped That Ass" (co-written with Rachel Bloom and Jack Dolgen) from the CW series Crazy Ex-Girlfriend.

He won the 2019 Emmy Award for Outstanding Original Music and Lyrics for "Antidepressants Are So Not a Big Deal" and was nominated for Outstanding Original Main Title Theme Music for "Meet Rebecca" (Season 4 Theme) from Crazy Ex-Girlfriend (both co-written with Rachel Bloom and Jack Dolgen).

Personal life
On January 30, 1999, Schlesinger married Katherine Michel, a graphic designer and Yale graduate. They met in 1996 at WXOU Radio Bar, a bar that Schlesinger used to frequent with Fountains of Wayne co-founder Chris Collingwood when they were starting the band. They divorced in 2013. Schlesinger and Michel had two daughters, Sadie and Claire.

Death and tribute
On April 1, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, Schlesinger died of complications from COVID-19 at a hospital in Poughkeepsie, New York at the age of 52. He had tested positive, and was hospitalized and placed on a ventilator for over a week before his death.

On June 16, 2020, the tribute album Saving for a Custom Van was released in Schlesinger's memory on Father/Daughter Records. The title is a reference to the Fountains of Wayne song "Utopia Parkway". The 31-track album features covers of songs Schlesinger wrote or performed by artists such as Kay Hanley, Ben Lee, and Prince Daddy & The Hyena. His collaborator Rachel Bloom and his Fountains of Wayne bandmate Jody Porter also participated. All proceeds from the album were donated to the MusiCares COVID-19 relief fund.

Cast members of That Thing You Do! as well as Colin Hanks and crew reunited on a Zoom/YouTube event during that summer, where they reminisced about Schlesinger and the movie, as well as an auction of a Mondo test pressing for a soundtracks first issue on vinyl, which was released in October 2023.

The 2021 revival of Johnny Test was dedicated to Schlesinger.

title: Adam Schlesinger


text:
Clark R. Mollenhoff

Clark R. Mollenhoff (April 16, 1921 – March 2, 1991) was a Pulitzer Prize winning American journalist, an attorney who served as Presidential Special Counsel, and a columnist for The Des Moines Register.

Life and career
Born in Burnside, Iowa on April 16, 1921, to Margaret and Raymond E. Mollenhoff, Clark R. Mollenhoff graduated from high school in Webster City, Iowa. He began working for The Des Moines Register in 1942 while attending Drake University law school, from which he graduated in 1944. Mollenhoff then served two years in the U.S. Navy before returning to the Register.

In 1955 he was given the Raymond Clapper Memorial Award for his Washington reporting. In 1958 Mollenhoff won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, for a series exposing racketeering and fraud in the Teamsters Union. His work led to a successful crack-down on corruption within the Teamsters.

In 1959 he received the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award as well as an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Colby College.

Eisenhower Fellowships selected Mollenhoff as a USA Eisenhower Fellow in 1960.

In 1965, Mollenhoff published Despoilers of Democracy, which provided details of corruption associated with Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (before he became president), in particular the Billie Sol Estes swindles and the TFX scandal of 1963, investigation into which was suspended after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

In 1969 he served for a year as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon, after which he became the Register's Washington bureau chief.

In 1976 Mollenhoff became a professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia while continuing to write a column for the Register.

In 1988 he wrote a biography of John Vincent Atanasoff, the Iowa State College professor who invented the first electronic digital computer in 1939. Mollenhoff's book gives the Atanasoff perspective of the 1973 federal court decision of Honeywell v. Sperry Rand that ruled the ENIAC computer patent invalid, and drew attention to Atanasoff's work.

Mollenhoff wrote twelve books and won many additional awards.

While living in Lexington, Virginia, Clark R. Mollenhoff died of cancer on March 2, 1991 at the age of 69.

The Clark Mollenhoff Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting is awarded annually by the Institute on Political Journalism for the best investigative journalism article in a newspaper or magazine.

Books

 * Washington Cover-Up: How Bureaucratic Secrecy Promotes Corruption and Waste in the Federal Government (1962), Doubleday. ISBN 0548443475 (2007 edition)
 * Tentacles of Power: The Story of Jimmy Hoffa (1965), World Publishing
 * Despoilers of Democracy: The real story of what Washington propagandists, arrogant bureaucrats, mismanagers, influence peddlers, and outright corrupters are doing to our Federal Government (1965), Doubleday
 * The Pentagon: Politics, Profits and Plunder (1967), G.P. Putnam's Sons
 * George Romney: Mormon in Politics (1968), Meredith Press
 * Strike Force: Organized Crime and the Government (1972), Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-13-852772-5
 * The Man Who Pardoned Nixon (1976), The K.S. Giniger Company, Inc., ISBN 978-0-900997-89-1
 * Game Plan for Disaster (1976), W.W. Norton & Co., ISBN 0-393-05543-4
 * The President Who Failed: Carter out of Control (1980), Free Press, ISBN 0-02-921750-4
 * Investigative Reporting: From Courthouse to White House (1981), Macmillan, ISBN 0-02-381870-0
 * Ballad to an Iowa Farmer: and Other Reflections (1991), Iowa State University Press ISBN 0-8138-1458-8
 * Ballad to an Iowa Farmer: and Other Reflections (1991), Iowa State University Press ISBN 0-8138-1458-8

title: Clark R. Mollenhoff