text:
Talk:Liberal Government 1905-1915

Comments
Shouldn't the title include somewhere a reference to the country that is being governed? "Liberal Government" by itself can be pretty ambiguous to an international audience. I'm not aware of the proper British formulation, but I would think that this article should be renamed U.K. Liberal Government 1905-1915 or something to that effect. BTW, John, kudos on your decent hard work transcribing all of this important historical info into wiki format.--Pharos 06:34, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey Pharos - we already have numerous articles in this format - see Whig Government 1830-1834, Conservative Government 1852, Liberal Government 1868-1874, and so forth. I would certainly not oppose moving all of them - but perhaps bring this up to User:Opera hat, who created the other pages. john k 14:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

At a minimum they should all have intros that make the subject country clear. Niteowlneils

We need a bit more on the laws and measurs they introduced. - Social laws - military build-up with opposition to Germany in mind (Dreadnoughts etc) - The conflict with the House of Lords over the "People's Budget". 90.16.51.233 08:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liberal Government 1905-1915


text:
Alamo Square, San Francisco

Alamo Square is a residential neighborhood in San Francisco, California with a park of the same name. Located in the Western Addition, its boundaries are Buchanan Street on the east, Turk Street on the north, Baker Street on the west, and Page Street Street on the south.

Alamo Square Park, the neighborhood's focal point and namesake, consists of four city blocks at the top of a hill overlooking much of downtown San Francisco, with a number of large and architecturally distinctive mansions along the perimeter, including the "Painted Ladies", a well-known postcard motif. The park is bordered by Hayes Street to the south, Steiner Street to the east, Fulton Street to the north, and Scott Street to the west. Named after the lone cottonwood tree ("álamo" in Spanish), Alamo Hill, was a watering hole on the horseback trail from Mission Dolores to the Presidio in the 1800s. In 1856, Mayor James Van Ness created a 12.7 acre park surrounding the watering hole, creating "Alamo Square".

Attractions and characteristics
Alamo Square Park includes a playground and a tennis court, and is frequented by neighbors, tourists, and dog owners. On a clear day, the Transamerica Pyramid building and the tops of the Golden Gate Bridge and Bay Bridge can be seen from the park's center. The San Francisco City Hall can be seen directly down Fulton Street. The area is part of the city's fifth Supervisorial district and is served by several Muni bus lines, including the 5, 21, 22, and 24. In 2016 it was closed for a $4.3 million renovation lasting seven months.

Architecture
The Alamo Square neighborhood is characterized by Victorian architecture that was left largely untouched by the urban renewal projects in other parts of the Western Addition. The Alamo Square area contains the second largest concentration of homes over 10,000 sqft in San Francisco, after the Pacific Heights neighborhood.

A row of Victorian houses facing the park on Steiner Street, known as the "Painted Ladies", are often shown in the foreground of panoramic pictures of the city's downtown area. A number of movies, television shows and commercials have been filmed in or around Alamo Square. The park features heavily in the 1978 horror film The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the 2012 romantic comedy The Five-Year Engagement. The opening sequence of the American sitcom Full House (1987–1995) features a romp in Alamo Square Park with the famous row of Victorians in the background.

There are many architecturally significant mansions on the perimeter of the park, including the William Westerfeld House, the Archbishop's Mansion, the residences of the Russian and German Imperial consuls in the early 1900s, and the mansions on the block diagonally across from the Painted Ladies. In 1984, the Alamo Square Historic District was created by the Board of Supervisors, stating:

""

Demographics
The demographics of the neighborhood are characteristic of other urban neighborhoods that have undergone gentrification: many young people and upper-middle-class homeowners, in addition to a diverse older population. Divisadero Street, which divides Alamo Square from North Panhandle, is home to a number of small businesses including a growing collection of hip and popular restaurants and bars, catering to the young tech professionals who are contributing to the booming San Francisco startup economy, and who value Alamo Square's weather, conveniently central location and easy access to transportation options.

Efforts on the part of Alamo Square and North Panhandle residents and merchants have led to restrictions on chain stores on the corridor.

Neighborhood groups include the Alamo Square Neighborhood Association and the Haight-Divisadero Neighborhood Merchants Association.

Notable residents
Author Alice Walker lived in one of the "Painted Lady" Victorians across from Alamo Square park up to the mid-1990s.

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

title: Alamo Square, San Francisco


text:
User:Firewithin3000

firewithin3000 is essentially liquid tits, applied liberally to dry white toast. batteries not included. warranty void in tennessee.

You can't stop him. He's on a mission from Gahd.

title: User:Firewithin3000


text:
Broad Fourteens

The Broad Fourteens is an area of the southern North Sea that is fairly consistently 14 fathom deep. Thus, on a nautical chart with depths given in fathoms, a broad area with many "14" notations can be seen.

Extent
The Broad Fourteens region is located off the coast of the Netherlands and south of the Dogger Bank, roughly between longitude 3°E and 4°30'E and latitude 52°30'N and 53°30'N. The area is known to the Dutch and German navies as the Breeveertien ("Fourteen"). Geologically it is comparable to the Long Forties, another submerged plateau that has related origins.

Naval battles
Naval engagements in the region have included the torpedoing of three British armoured cruisers in the action of 22 September 1914 during World War I.

Navigation
The shallowness of the area means that the largest oil tankers when fully loaded cannot traverse the Broad Fourteens to reach the English Channel from the North Sea because their draft is too deep.

In media
The area features in the wartime documentary The Broad Fourteens about Royal Navy motor torpedo boats operating in the area.

title: Broad Fourteens


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahoo Underground

 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yahoo Underground
I suspect this was written to advertise a defunct web page (http://www.yahoo-underground.com) which was designed to spread information about misbehaving on Yahoo's chat and game servers. Even if it weren't, this page needs a lot of help even for a stub and I'm not sure much more could be done with it than already has. BenSamples 06:39, 16 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.
 * Delete. Trilobite (Talk) 14:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. At best, a passing mention might be warranted within the Yahoo! article, but I am of the opinion that it does not warrant even that. HyperZonk 17:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, yahoocruft or whatever. Wyss 20:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005

 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. Mackensen (talk) 01:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005
This tally chart has been added by me. If I've added your vote in error, please edit my chart. Mike H 03:17, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

More of Everyking's Ashleecruft. RickK 06:40, Feb 16, 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.
 * Delete, please make it stop! Adam Bishop 06:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wiki is not paper. Everyking 06:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete today! Rhobite 06:45, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete, Ashlee is ruining Wikipedia! -- Riffsyphon1024 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge Stick this with the general Ashlee Simpson article.  --Hedgeman 06:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Everyking 06:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why constantly try to annoy people with useless and unnecessary articles when you can just edit away at her main article, and instead of making it sound like a commercial. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to write about the tour itself. It's a notable thing in its own right. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: Wiki is not bog paper. -- Hoary 06:55, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is, first, already on Ashlee Simpson's main article: Ashlee Simpson. Second, this does not need to be it's own article --AlexTheMartian 06:58, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Much of it isn't, and I'm planning on expanding it greatly. They haven't even done the first show yet. Everyking 07:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When they do, I'll enjoy cackling over the Guardian review of this non-event. -- Hoary 07:32, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Boy, someone's gonna have to provide a translation of some of the Brit-Pop-Culture terminology in that review. --Calton 08:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have got to be kidding. Delete, jam a wooden stake in its heart, burn the corpse, and salt the earth it lay upon. Everyking, you're becoming a parody of yourself. Get help. --Calton 07:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Having just read the entry for Fancruft, I reluctantly agree that a musical tour of a big name artist is an event large enough to justify its own page. However, I favour retaining information about future tours within the artist's main page and only forking off a separate page after the tour has occured and the level of detail has risen sufficiently for the separate page to be clearly larger than a stub (and for there to be no doubt that it's not promotional in nature). I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures; If it's deleted now can it come back later? ...at 08:33, 2005 Feb 16 Krisjohn forgot the twiddles
 * Keep now or let it be recreated when it gets bigger. Did we mention that wikipedia is not paper? ...at 09:01, 2005 Feb 16 Kappa forgot to hit the twiddles
 * Did we mention that it's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an obsessed fanboy shrine? --Calton 10:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Information about major tours by popular artists would fit nicely in a music encyclopedia, and I don't think it says anywhere that WP limits itself to being a "general" encyclopedia. Kappa 10:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't think of any music encyclopedia that has entire articles about individual tours by particular, ah, artistes. (A fanboy encyclopedia devoted to Simpson might, though.) -- Hoary 11:01, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete. I wouldn't mind a list of Ashlee Simpson tours with brief descriptions on each, but this is becoming too specific. Radiant! 11:04, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary detail in its own page - Skysmith 11:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Merits a sentence in the main article. --BM 12:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Get hold of the MediaWiki software, get some hosting sorted, and set up an Ashlee Simpson encyclopedia. Trilobite (Talk) 14:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be nice, but it doesn't excuse Wikipedia from the task of having a general article on the tour. I hear there's a music wiki now, but I don't see people running around deleting music articles left and right. Everyking 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete this is getting absolutely ridiculous. Enough already. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:43, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary detail for insufficiently notable performer; speculative, with no verifiable content except a schedule of future events; and for the not-quite-policy reason that WP has already VfD'ed other Ashlee-excess-detail breakout articles. This has already gotten into past rounds of Requests for Comment and I hope it ends instead of leading to feuding.  Barno 14:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speculative? Everything in the article is factual and verifiable. Everyking 14:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And appealing to precedent doesn't make much sense. As I recall, four Ashlee articles have been kept (POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts) and two have been deleted (Auto album design, Auto promo & publicity). Everyking 14:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops, what about the articles about Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV? Did those slip your mind? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:06, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It might be acceptable to have one article with a list of all of her tours. This isn't Ashlipedia. Carrp | Talk 15:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Fine. We can consolidate all the information on her concerts past present and future onto this article if it gets kept. But there's no sense in deleting it. The fact is, people will find this article useful. Everyking 15:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier and more productive to create a new page such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours and use the existing information as a starting point? I'm not sure how keeping this article (US tour, 2005) would be helpful to readers or editors. Carrp | Talk 15:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We can always just move it to another title if we decide to do that. But keep in mind this is her first real tour per se, although I could still write some stuff about her 2004 concerts. Everyking 15:22, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Carrp, make one such list, under the most generic title (i.e. not one ending in US. 2005). If list happens to have only one tour, I believe we should merge with main A.S. article. Radiant! 15:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as with all other musicians, and indeed all other articles in general, breaking out discographies/tour lists/biographies is only warranted when the size of the relevant section in the main article becomes unwieldy. This is most definitely not the case for a musician's very first tour which hasn't even occurred yet.  Delete this groundless fork, and let the already existing tour section of Ashlee Simpson expand in the normal way.  Uncle G 16:03, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete, or merge back into the main article if more detail is required there. The tour hasn't even had its first performance yet.  An article may be warranted if something particularly noteworthy (in the context of popular music, not just Ashlee Simpson) happens on the tour.  If she has more than a few tours, then it might be worthwhile to break them out together into a separate article, but that's a question for a couple of years from now. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain leaning toward keep. I don't see the harm of forking this off of the main article and deleting it after the tour ends.  Someone researching Ashlee Simpson could conceivably be interested in tour info.  Just my $.02. - Lucky 6.9 17:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Putting this specific VfD aside for a moment, I strongly disagree with the idea of creating an article with the intention of deleting it in the future. If an article's subject is encyclopedic today, it won't become unencyclopedic in the future. Even if it was no longer notable in the future, it would still be encyclopedic because it was notable at one time. Getting back to this VfD, I don't like the idea of such a specific article. Are there going to be separate articles if there are tours in 2006 or 2007? What about tours in countries other than the US? I support the creation of one article, such as List of Ashlee Simpson tours. Carrp | Talk 18:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And if you vote keep, that's what we'll have. But if this deleted, then the precedent will be set not to have articles on tours, which I think is ridiculous. Think how many people will go to these shows, and how many of them there are. Not only that, but it's going to be featured on the reality show, which makes it even more notable. Everyking 18:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, how many articles on tours do we currently have? Just this one, Lollapalooza, Family Values Tour (substub), and Lilith Fair (stub).  Nobody seems to have bothered to put up articles about any of the enormous single-artist insternational tours that have happened every year for decades.  If major world tours don't get articles, then why should this single-country tour have one?  If all tours should have articles, then we should focus on the major tours by the likes of Madonna, U2, Elton John, The Rolling Stones, etc. before we bother with Ashlee trivia. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a paltry stub on the Blond Ambition Tour. If Ashlee Simpson is a worldwide superstar in 10 years, maybe she can have a similar tour worthy of mention. Adam Bishop 19:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? I imagine someone in the early days of Wikipedia insisting on the deletion of an article on San Marino because China doesn't yet have an article. It doesn't matter whether we start big or small. Everyking 19:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See, you seem to be assuming that tours don't have articles simply because nobody has had time to create them yet. Instead, I'd say that tours don't have articles because most people feel they're not encyclopedic.  Example: Madonna's Re-invention Tour was probably the most important tour of last year (certainly the highest-grossing) and the folks over at the Madonna (entertainer) article have discussed the tour in the main article, complete with two pictures, rather than spinning it off.  If any recent tour should have an article, it should be that one, but it doesn't, because it's just plain not necessary.  Think about it: imagine somebody really did want to use Wikipedia to research Ashlee's tour.  Which is more logical... that they'd look for it on the Ashlee Simpson page, or that they'd type in "Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005"?  Come on, now. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * ...They'd go to Ashlee's article first and follow the link, obviously. That's how we organize all kinds of things. A summary in Ashlee's article, then comprehensive detail in this one. Everyking 21:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I support articles that detail all tours of an an artist. I do not support articles on one tour in one year in one country. Unless you believe this is Ashlee Simpson's first and last tour, there needs to be a more general article. I can't speak for any other users, but voting to delete an article on a specific tour and keep a general list of tours makes sense. Carrp | Talk 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But it'd be the same content, I'd just move it to a new title and thereby give it a new "mission statement". Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't this her only tour, though? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * According to the article it is indeed her only tour. It began today. We have a guide to writing better articles, which recommends forking sections when they grow too big. We also have plenty of examples of this in action, such as India. Ashlee Simpson already has a section for what she's intending to do in 2005. It hasn't grown anywhere near large enough to warrant a fork, given that this is an artist with exactly one tour ever that hasn't really happened yet.  Indeed, the fork is barely longer than the section in the main article itself, and the main article already has nearly all of its content. This fork is groundless. In other cases where there has been an edit war in the main article, followed by one of the participants then forking off xyr own private articles on sub-sub-topics that are simultaneously being edited collaboratively in the main article, we stop them.  The creationism/evolution, Zionism, eastern Europe, Pakistan, China, big bang, and other debates may be higher profile than a debate about a singer on MTV that most people have never heard of, but they are all the same when it comes to article forking. Uncle G 11:01, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And since it's her only tour, then re-purposing the article as a general list of her tours (with only one item!) wouldn't exactly improve it. I still vote Strong delete.Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:47, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * It just might be her first and her last. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:21, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good point regarding a "throwaway" article. That would be a rather ugly precident.  Still, the more I think about it, the more I feel this should stay as part of a larger list.  I like the idea of a List of Ashlee Simpson tours beginning with the info in this article if this is her first tour.  We have a lot more ephemeral info than this floating around this site and the info might be better served as part of a larger list.  Heck, I came up with Mercedes-Benz 6.9 Specifications to unclutter the main article!  That's ephemeral, friends. - Lucky 6.9 18:59, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with a general article on her touring. At first it would by necessity focus on this tour, but with time it would presumably grow to cover more. But if this is deleted, then I can't recreate it in any form, because it'd be too similar, like recreating a deleted article. Everyking 19:09, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Wikipedia is not paper, but it is also not the Library of Babel, nor is it an endless and tedious compendium of every bit of trivia and gossip and useless, insignificant "facts". It is an encyclopedia, not a dumping ground.  That means we have a duty not to mindlessly compile facts but to present them in a consise and usable manner, making judgments about which facts are important and which are not.  Concert tours even by notable artists are largely non-notable, and even when they are notable, a short summary in that artist's article will suffice.  The profliferation of articles on this insignificant singer who will be largely forgotten in a couple of years shows that detached, objective judgment is not being applied to this matter. Gamaliel 19:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of judgment and objectivity. I consider a tour which will involve thousands of spectators and will attract some media attention (at least from MTV) to be notable. I do not philosophically agree with you about summarizing and making things concise. Regardless of what you say, that philosophy is the very opposite of the "wiki is not paper" notion—it's the mentality of the editor of a paper encyclopedia. Things should exist in a concise format to suit the general reader, but there are also readers who will want detail who need to be satisfied as well. On the other hand, I am not trying to fill Wikipedia up with trivia. I believe non-notable content should be removed. This is merely an attempt at a general article on the tour; I am not trying to produce fan-site detail. Everyking 19:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm curious how you define trivia, because it appears that you are trying to fill Wikipeida with exactly that. Gamaliel 19:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * weak Keep I'm pushed over the boundary towards keeping because of the inevitable MTV coverage this tour is going to get.  Johntex 19:32, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd personally have to plead mea culpa to the charge of adding trivia. I've written about two defunct roads, a defunct amusement park, two nearly defunct towns, a defunct toy car and a defunct real car.  I don't know how many Google hits Ashlee Simpson gets, but I'm sure it's a considerable number.  Adding detail to whatever information this site can provide for an up-to-the-minute subject should be welcomed.  We have to keep the end user in mind.  This isn't bandcruft at all.  It's verifiable and factual information that's spun off of the main article about a "hot commodity."  Wikilove, all.  :^) - Lucky 6.9 19:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not encyclopedic, potential fork/dupe. Wyss 20:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Y'all, really.  There's absolutely no need for this article.  Just put it in her main article.  One of the things I love most about this place is the lively intellectual debate over things like this, but I can't believe how much mental effort has been dumped into this cesspit of a topic. Katefan0 21:59, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The main article is long and will continue to grow. I don't have space to write adequately about the tour there. Everyking 22:10, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I imagine that's probably nothing that a nice, sharp editor's pencil can't fix. Katefan0 22:24, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * We're trying to build this encyclopedia, not deconstruct it. Everyking 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We're trying to build a good encyclopedia. Wheat will always be wheat, and chaff will always be chaff.  Katefan0 22:32, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course. I suppose we just disagree about what's wheat and what's chaff. Everyking 22:39, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a continuum, not a dichotomy, so I guess we'll always be fighting about it. Kappa 23:01, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable, only of interest to hardcore fans. If the main article is too long, it's because it needs serious trimming and editing - it shouldn't be spawning so many offshoots, really. Worldtraveller 22:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not a hardcore fan, I'm just curious about her because of Everyking, but I still find that material interesting, especially the songs she plans to play. Kappa 22:26, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lots of artists have lots of tours. What makes any of them notable? The artist is notable, the songs are notable, the albums are notable, and those three types of articles should be able to encompass any relavent information on a given topic. --InShaneee 22:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I hope Everyking is being compensated well for writing these articles.  212.157.248.28 23:03, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, no matter how you slice it. It's just a tour itinerary, and for one that just started today, for crying out loud.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What, so it'd be better if I created it in April? Seems to me better to have the article early, because while the tour is ongoing is when people are most likely to want the info. Everyking 00:18, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not article-worthy either way. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's information that's only of ephemeral usefulness, perhaps it belongs on Wikinews, if anywhere...? --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, more notable bands don't even have lists of the many world tours the have done--nixie 00:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So get to work, why don't you? Everyking 01:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - only major tours/shows, or tours/shows that have brand identity distinct from the bands performing, should have articles. -Sean Curtin 01:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Examples include Ozzfest, Warped Tour, Woodstock, and Lollapalooza. Ashlee Simpson's Tour is not an annual event. -- Riffsyphon1024 19:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Calton, Barno, Uncle G, Gamaliel and Starblind said. I don't think this would set a precedent for a future List of Ashlee Simpson tours. This one is an article on one single tour in one single country; if this vote sets any precedent, it would be regarding similar articles about one-artist single tour in one single country, not about articles summarizing all tours by a given artist. (And a trivial sidenote: I had never heard of this woman.) JoaoRicardo 08:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I hadn't heard of her till the other day myself. I wonder if "Ashlee" rhymes with "Milli" or Vanilli". Anyway, she's recorded one album, and you can find more about her music in this Guardian article. -- Hoary 13:14, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. You are certainly forgetting that Wikipedia has several articles on The Simpsons.  Just because this Simpson is not the creation of Matt Groening doesn't mean her music isn't important. — Jesse's Girl 19:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * She has a page at Ashlee Simpson. She also has pages for each one of her albums. Ashlee and her music are well represented on Wikipedia. There is no need for there to be an article specific to one tour. Carrp | Talk 19:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Jesse's Girl's first edit was today. Gamaliel 19:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So? I'm a legitimate user. I've made a few contributions so far, but have been editing anonymously forever.  I only decided to get an account so I could participate in VfD.
 * If you've been around VfD before you'd know that tagging the votes of new users is pretty standard procedure and that admins tallying the votes may count or discount those particular votes based on their judgement. No offense was intended. Gamaliel 20:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed that Jesse's Girl added the event of Ashlee lip-synching on October 24 (also happens to be my birthday) and it was deleted by guess who? Yep, Everyking is trying to protect the validity of Ashlee's performances, however Jesse's Girl reverted it. Lol. -- Riffsyphon1024 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. A concert tour would have to be very exceptional to warrant a separate encyclopedia article.  Tours are where musicians go from city to city and give concerts.  So what?   Wikipedia isn't a concert listing. In this case, (a) Ashlee Simpson is not an especially notable artist; (b) we already have much more information than is reasonable about this artist; and (c) the tour just started, so if something exceptional during the tour is going to make it notable, it hasn't happened yet.   --BM 19:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Remark by Dpbsmith (talk) deleted by himself).
 * The result of your thorough research of the NY Times, I suppose? Why don't you hold the provocative statements? Everyking 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cancer. -Ashley Pomeroy 19:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Cancer! See what I've got to deal with? You think this information is cancer? Everyking 20:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What you've got to deal with? Are you Ashlee's agent now? In any case, "cancer" is the wrong term: metastasis is probably mush closer. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (But the term "cancer" is uncalled for, as I'm sure we all know, Miss Simpson is a Libra, not a Cancer). Totally unreasonable granularity. Include this material in the Ashlee Simpson article or not at all. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Carnildo 22:53, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Toot toot here comes the deletion clown. silsor 00:43, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Look at that fundraising notice up there. Hey, we'll take your money, but you can forget about all that business about being the sum of human knowledge! Everyking 00:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So you'll be voting "keep" for everything on VfD? Every single article listed contains some bit of human knowlege, however small. --Carnildo 01:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course not. But I can sympathize with that kind of inclusionism far sooner than I can sympathize with deletionism that pushes for the removal of notable content. If we do make mistakes in our decisions, I'd rather we erred on the side of inclusion. Everyking 01:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it really necessary to let all these delete voters know individually that you disagree? I think we've all figured out that you want to keep the article. silsor 01:39, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, your vote was worded in a particularly obnoxious way, so I figured it warranted an obnoxious response. Everyking 01:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is, of course, almost nobody -- and I do mean almost nobody -- agrees that the unvarnished raw boosterism trivia you dump into any article connected with Ashlee Simpson qualifies as "notable content". That you haven't understood this, that your invariable reaction to it is to wave your hands and pout, "I guess we disagree about that" instead of trying to understand that, and that you treat the slightest disagreement about or distaste for Ashlee Simpson as if it were a personal attack leads me to say: get help. Seriously. Imagine an editor behaving this way regarding Circumcision, Sollog, or England, and maybe you'll see some parallels and see how far out of proportion your actions are towards anything Ashlee Simpson-related. --Calton 02:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Calton, for God's sake, quit with the personal attacks and go write an article or something. I know you don't like me. Life will go on. Everyking 02:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks? For God's sake read what I wrote. Step back and compare your behavior with the analogous behavior I cited. This has been going on for months, and nothing has penetrated: you're right, everyone else is wrong, and any and all misbehavior on your part is not your fault because other people forced you to do it. ArbCom made some findings on your behavior and imposed sanctions less than a month ago, and you've been blocked three times for violating them. Dozens of editors, thousands of words, some failed VfDs: what does it take to get through to you? --Calton 07:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No, no, Calton, I've never said I'm 100% right or anybody else is 100% wrong. My "misbehavior" has been awfully mild—I haven't told anybody to "get help" yet, for one thing—but when I have reacted too strongly to things I have apologized. Behind all your demonization of me is a simple content dispute regarding inclusion and notability, and yes, I do think I'm basically (not 100%) right in my positions there: so sue me. Everyking 09:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * More strawmen. Of course you've never said you're 100% right: you merely behaved as if you're 100% right, and offered thin rationalization after thin rationalization for it. That, coupled with mischaracterizations and distortions (both of people's postings and of the situations) so wild that they can only be either pathological or deliberate leads me to seriously say -- not as a horrible insult as your snide little passive-aggressive line above tries to make it out to be -- get help. Rereading the RfC and RfAr against you, discussing with friends willing to be objective, getting peer or psychological counseling, whatever.  --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If your misbehaviour has been so mild, then why did it lead to an Arbitration case and sanctions against you just last month? The fact is that you've been defying consensus (one of the central principles of WP) on just about everything Ashlee-related.  The landslide victories of the last four VfDs against Ashlee articles surely must tell you something. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  14:52, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, it's just politics. I try not to let that get to me. Of course the accusation that I defy consensus is absurd, too absurd to even bother refuting. Everyking 16:36, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, that last statement is breathtaking in its audacity. And what political games would ArbCom be playing, exactly? They explicitly ruled that you defied consensus: do you want to go on record now that the ruling was wrong? That ArbCom was wrong? And have you therefore filed your appeal with Jimbo Wales? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 19:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * The last four? Only two Ashlee articles have ever failed VfD. Four have survived. Everyking 22:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The other two are the Ashlee on SNL and Ashlee on Mad TV articles. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  20:47, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * The Mad TV article doesn't count; it was a joke which I myself voted to delete. Everyking 20:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure my brain isn't going to comprehend why that VfD "doesn't count" because you voted delete on it, so I'll just reword my previous statement slightly and we'll move right along: Surely you would consider that the enormous landslide victories of the VfDs against the last four (or three) Ashlee spinoff articles represent a consensus that WP just doesn't need or want more of the same? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is Iasson when you really need him? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * For the sake of accuracy, do you mind listing them all? --Calton 23:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did before: POM, Shadow, La La, Auto sales&charts—kept; Auto album design, Auto promo&publicity—deleted. Seems like you haven't been paying attention, Calt. Everyking 02:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Ashlee Simpson on SNL got deleted as well. Worldtraveller 02:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oops. Yeah, I haven't been paying attention. Ok, 4 to 3, then. Everyking 02:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's called asking for clarification, Everk, on a claim both of you were making and on which even you were unclear. Seems like your snarkiness was uncalled for, hmm? --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unless the Hell's Angels show up and beat a couple dozen teenyboppers to death, there's nothing notable here. Madame Sosostris 05:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subtrivial pseudoinformation. Wikipedia is not a recycling bin, a dumpster, or a landfill. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Jonathunder 06:06, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a shrine to pop tartlets. —Korath (Talk) 23:46, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Who said it was? Everyking 23:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That would be you. --Calton 00:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't recall. When and where did I say that? Everyking 00:48, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When you created this article. And the one on the album design. And the one on the album's sales. Rinse lather repeat. --Calton 11:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What kind of logic is that? When I create articles on African elections, are those shrines to African leaders? Everyking 18:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. A.D.H. (t&m) 05:14, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep' or merge with main article. bbx 05:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongest Delete. The idea of making an individual encyclopedic article about the 2005 tour of a popstar is a contradiction in itself. This is obviously unencyclopedic, even if God himself were touring. I don't think it's worth a mention even in Ashlee Simpson's article, unless this particular tour is something notable, and we won't be prepared to judge about that before it's finished. Complete waste of Wikitime. vlad_mv 05:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, single tour by a single artist in which not a single thing has happened which is out of the ordinary means that it doesn't need its own article. - Vague | Rant 10:27, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, albeit with reluctance. I wish Everyking would spend his time on more worthwhile projects (meaning, oh, just about anything else), but the existence of more worthwhile projects isn't an argument for deletion.  I vote keep on the basis of his expressed willingness to make this a List of Ashlee Simpson tours when (if) there's a second one, so we can dump her whole touring career into one article. JamesMLane 11:18, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We already have the one article. It's Ashlee Simpson, and it already has a section on the tour that is being collaboratively edited. Uncle G 22:54, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
 * delete this is what pollstar is for, it's her 15mins of "fame" over yet.--User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - Goodbye Ashleecruft, Pieces of Crap. Advertising or other spam, begone. --Mrfixter 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it somehow pains me to say so. Being thoroughly sick of anything to do with Ms Simpson is not a reason for deletion per policy - David Gerard 23:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * After Everyking decided to stop editing many contentious Ashlee-related articles, I thought I'd give this a once-over to see if it was worthy. I don't really think it is. It reads like an advertisement: "Ashlee will be here, here, and here. These people will be performing with her." The only thing it lacks is "Buy your tickets from Ticketmaster!" Delete. Mike H 06:58, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's not as notable as some B-list soap opera actors and actresses, huh? Come on now... Everyking 19:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your bias is showing. While I may not like Ashlee Simpson, I keep this away from debates and try to come to the table with a clear mind about the articles written. To bring up your distaste for soap actresses (which you did, by calling them B-list, which has negative connotations), you're just throwing muck and I wish you would stop it. Mike H 21:20, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not throwing muck, I'm just saying that you seem to be the author of a lot of content that is less notable than this article. That content is very good, and I have no bias against soap operas. I just don't see how minor actors and characters from them can be considered more notable than this national tour by a platinum selling artist. Everyking 21:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The people I've written about, such as Luke and Laura and Cliff and Nina, are a lot more notable than you may think. In any case, let's stop this. Now. Mike H 21:41, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not showing a whole lot of confidence in your reasoning with that kind of attitude, Mike. Everyking 04:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I just don't feel I have to prove anything to you. Mike H 04:38, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fight over. Can you see the majority, Everyking? (Btw, I'm glad Wikipedia is finally back up!) -- Riffsyphon1024 05:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can see the majority. Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-encyclopedic. Just another tour by just another artist. Rje 06:00, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't you extend that logic to anything? Everyking 06:13, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: No.   — Gwalla | Talk 07:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well, that doesn't tell me much. I think you can. Just another president, just another war, just another natural disaster, just another nation-state, just another chemical element, just another classic of world literature, etc. Every national tour by a platinum selling artist is different, but they are all alike in that unifying characteristic. In the same way, every U.S. president is different, but all alike in that they are U.S. presidents. So the question is whether you care enough about the differences to notice them or place a priority on them, right? How can that be a determining factor in notability? If I happen to think, well, they all held the same office and governed the same country, so we don't need these articles, would that make them any less notable? No, because they are famous. If two things are independently famous, then they are each notable in their own right, regardless of whether you think they are similar or not. Everyking 07:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Try the "will anybody care about this 50 years from now" test. Fifty years from now, will anybody still care about World War Two? Yes. Will anybody care about the past Presidents of the USA? Yes (well, maybe not Buchanan). Will anybody care about a particular tour by a pop singer? No.   — Gwalla | Talk 00:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * By comparing Ashlee to presidents and the like, you've mostly proved everybody else's point... So far, you've created at least 10 or so Ashlee articles, all told. How many world leaders have that many articles on WP?  How many literary classics?  How many nobel laureates?  How many philosophers?  How many inventors, research scientists, chemists, mathematicians, professors?  I don't care if you listen to me or not, but for your own sake, listen to consensus: the Ashleecruft has gotten way out of hand. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  00:43, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It was a theoretical comparison. Most of the things you name deserve far more coverage than Ashlee and her music do, so if they're lacking, somebody needs to get to work. But that's not to say the subject of Ashlee doesn't still deserve comprehensive coverage. Everyking 00:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music

Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length
Hi, I've started a discussion over on WP:UNITS about the Use of feet in music for pitch, organ stops, wind instrument air column length, if anyone has opinions and would like to discuss. Cheers — Jon (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Righto, now that's sorted, perhaps we should discuss the use of eight-foot pitch notation (e.g. 16′ pedal stop) for organ stops and wind instruments? — Jon (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's worth discussing in the context of organs, but is not much used otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Pitch
Considering the recent topic above (eight-foot pitch notation for organ stops), there is no discussion here in the MOS about pitch, which is pretty fundamental. Consensus in the literature seems to be orbiting around scientific pitch notation, which follows the note letter with a number for the octave, usually as a subscript (e.g. middle C = C₄) but sometimes a regular number (C4) or superscript (C⁴) is used. I'm not proposing we settle on which of those to use, as long as one of them is used, just recommending it over the many (and there are many!) older systems due to its simplicity and increasingly common use. Additionally, I think we should at least mention in passing, or make an allowance for, the use of eight-foot pitch notation where appropriate too, which would be when discussing organ stops, or technical organology topics like wind instrument air columns, lengths of keyboard strings, etc. This notation is standard for describing organ stops (e.g. 2′ flute stop) and an exception has been made on MOS:FOOT to allow for this usage. — Jon (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think scientific pitch notation is most commonly written in the subscript form ( or   -> C$4$). I would suggest not to use the Unicode character . -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, I just bashed out a ₄ quickly for illustrative purposes. — Jon (talk) 08:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

THEBAND disambiguators
Re MOS:THEBAND, it doesn't really say much about disambiguators, e.g. "(Beatles song)" vs "(the Beatles song)" vs "(The Beatles song)". We decided some years ago to use "(Beatles song)", as in All Together Now (Beatles song), yet had a lot of pushback (all my changes were undone) 5 years ago when trying to do similarly for things like Mama Said (The Shirelles song) or I Luv U (The Ordinary Boys song) or Meanwhile (The Moody Blues song). Is there any appetite for trying to be more consistent about such things? Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There was a discussion on this very issue recently at WP:ALBUMS. It resulted in, surprise surprise, no consensus.
 * (My opinion? We should omit "the" here.) Popcornfud (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe a well-advertised RFC, with an actual close, would have a chance of reaching a consensus. We should explicitly propose wording to add to the MOS, perhaps a couple of options, since people are finding different interpretations in the current wording.  As you can see, my opinion agrees with yours; I'm sorry I missed that discussion.  Dicklyon (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want to make such a discussion, you have my vote! Popcornfud (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dicklyon I sure dislike those long discussions that end without consensus and Wikipedia continuing to be inconsistent. Go for it! And don't let my implied pessimism hold you back. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Title Stylizations
It seems to have become standard on Wikipedia to trade semantic and historical accuracy of song and album titles for hard-line notions of "grammatical correctness". I just want it to be know that this is biasing Wikipedia against meaning conveyed through stylizations and that it makes it less accurate and less useful for scholarship and historical study. It is also completely inconsistent with how consumers might see and find works. For example, many poems and songs use all lowercase with some uppercase letters to spell out words. By removing stylizations, you are deliberately erasing conveyed meaning from the title. This goes for every single artistic work, including poetry and music. A few others on Wikipedia, like @Livelikemusic seem to call the use of stylizations "fan-driven"; this reasoning is biased and to me would go against Wikipedia's neutrality. If you want to be for or against stylizations, you have to have logical reasons for doing so. Anything else would not be neutral at all. In my opinion, there are no logical reasons for going against stylizations, but there are plenty of logical reasons to take them into account, some of which I've already discussed above. Krixano (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This is a formal notice that I will be bowing out of this discussion, because I take internet cults very seriously, and after spending several hours reading a lot of user interaction here on Wikipedia, I have decided in my best judgement that this is an unsafe environment that I would consider to be an internet cult. I apologize to anyone expecting me to continue the discussion, but I cannot do that. You can view my User page, if it remains up, for additional reasons to this decision. Krixano (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Personnel listing on albums
Assuming this is the right place to mention this. I'm sort of curious since I've seen it on some articles but not on others; why do Personnel lists on some albums use  to separate personnel instead of  ? I went to check this page to see if it was a MOS thing, but it appears to not be, so I'm stumped. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If it's about presentation, it's a MOS thing. Very basically pseudo headings are used when editors decide they should be (we have discretion about almost everything). They don't appear in the Table of Contents and offer no natural target for browsers, but give readers a heading-like indicator. If there has ever been a discussion about this specific concern, it may have resulted in a forgotten decision or none. If there's nothing written in stone about what should be done with personnelle, but there's a clear common style in current use, defer to that (it's natural consensus), and if it's mostly one way, with a relatively few outliers, it could be worth drafting guidelines based on the common style.  20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Seconding everything Fred said. Worth clarifying the usefulness of pseudoheaders in keeping from flooding the TOC. As an example, I recently created Everyone's Getting Involved: A Tribute to Talking Heads' Stop Making Sense, where all the personnel are separately listed track-by-track. If I had used  instead, there would be 16 additional headers and the TOC would be longer than the infobox. In cases like this, I find preservation of space to be preferable. There is also the option of TOC limit, but I wouldn't use it in that article because it could interfere with other level 3 headings that I/other editors may want to apply later as they become relevant. As for a guideline, I think MOS:PSEUDOHEAD does a good job of getting this across already. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Music


text:
Talk:Free verse

.
Can someone do something about this article? Free verse is such an important topic, but the article is in need of help, length, everything, from experts. And from people who can write. The first paragraph is a disaster! (" Many poems composed in free verse thus tend to not follow the rhythm it's suppose to therefore creating a 'free' effect." Good heavens!)

--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.170.148 (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

ok, the concept belies the method in its purview of vagarious dissemination...free, you say free verse? I say free is a matter of contextual thought when the pretext of what is is not formulated. And yes, the rendition must be in manners of laudable art form, the inventiveness of imagery, for instance, conveys a certain internal mode contrary to the concept...the irony could kill an elephant.

This article is not fine. Except for the random reference to vers libre. I don't know enough about poetry to fix it, but it is certainly incomplete.

--- How about some examples? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

--- Shouldn't this page also include a discussion of the criticisms of free verse? --MattOConnor (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Citations/Examples
Yes, particularly citations for quotes, such as Robert Frost's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macduffman (talk • contribs) 13:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Where/when did Frost say this? I've always seen this dropped in as a one-liner without any context. Where did it come from, and can such a statement be representative of his entire view of free-verse if it has no context? 161.6.50.98 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

edit by 70.234.222.255
"However, much like blank verse poetry, it has been suggested that free verse poetry be recategroized simply as another type of literary composition since, in contrast to literally ever other type of traditional poetry, it doesn't rhyme."

I've reverted this edit, much as was done with the similar edit to blank verse. We don't need sour grapes spoiling the article. But some more cogent, and sourced, criticism of free verse wouldn't be out of place.GreetingsEarthling (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Overhaul
I think it is important to remember that not everyone reading this article will want to take a scholarly approach to the subject - perhaps the introductory paragraph could be rewritten to include a basic definition of how free verse differs from rhyming verse.

Also expressions like "other traditional elements of expression, such as diction and syntax may still be prominent" are very vague. This sentence contains syntax for example and how I decide to use punctuation will determine the resulting diction.

Just as a last thought, it might be prudent to introduce a section concerning why some poets prefer the use of free verse to other forms.

Thanks Natty444 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the article has gone from whatever was written when the above was posted to now having no introductory paragraph at all? --Shadebug (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there then only two verse forms - "rhyming" and "free"? What happened to alliterative, metrical and many others that have been successfully used over the millennia? 212.159.59.5 (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The section "Form and Structure" offers exclusively a subjective and potentially biased view of the merits of free verse. Both argument and counter-argument are needed for the section to be objective. 212.159.59.5 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No examples?
I think that there should be a few small examples or extracts of free verse poems demonstrating its non strict but still recognizable rhythmic and rhyme patterns which characterize free verse poems.--128.100.86.78 (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased and subjective
"Free verse is not easy to write... much pattern and discipline is to be found in it.... the choice of exact words and the effect of associations give it its beauty." - This is the writer's opinion, and doesn't really have a place here.

Also, I do not think Jim Morrison is a reputable source. While a famous lyricist, he wasn't really known for his free verse poetry, and certainly not for his literary criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.8.153 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased lede
The whole lede is completely biased. After a one sentence neutral definition, it springs straight into nothing for the rest of the intro but criticism of free verse and how it is not free and that two people think it's restrictive, without even any exploration of how free verse has been argued to actually BE 'free' and not 'restrictive' first. Or at least we should talk more about what free verse intends to achieve, when it was started to be first used, it's changes and developments over time, key authors who used it (Whitman and Lawrence, for example). EryZ (talk) 03:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Free verse is not poetry and those who write it are not poets
It is asked on this talk page "should there not be some criticisms of free verse" so I am putting back an entry which shows free verse is not poetry and those who write it are not poets. This entry will be most likely deleted often as it breaks some people idol that free verse is poetry. So here is the entry

Critique

CritiqueA critique which shows that according to the standard definition of poetry ie in metre free verse is not poetry and those who write it ie Walt Whitman, T S Eliot etc are not poets. Thus most modernist poetry is not really poetry at all but only prose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kullusa (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

 * IMHO that link look suspicious. I think that if a critique to free verse should be made then a reference to a scholar article should be preferred. Tesi1700 (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is largely free of criticism of free verse, and surely not every response to free verse over the years has been been positive. There are and have been those who agree that free verse is not really poetry or even "verse," and the article could really use a section that reflects that. I, for one, would like to know what exactly is the difference between free verse and a speech? Count Robert of Paris (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Formal request has been received to merge Vers libre into Free verse; dated: November 2017. Proposer's Rationale: Two different terms for the same thing, and both articles have very overlapping contents. Discuss here. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the articles overlap enough that they would benefit from a merge. Numerous specialist sources treat the terms synonymously.   The Britannica gives them separate articles, one for the movement in French poetry and the other for the corresponding one in English. Another source also divides them by language, and though this is occasionally implied by others, it by no means seems a hard-and-fast rule in current use. I found one other source which distinguishes the two, but seemingly based on older characteristics which are not universal to vers libre in French, and considers it a kind of free verse anyway. As for the direction of merge, vers libre narrowly wins out in general Google results (365,000,000 vs 319,000,000) but loses in Google books (615,000 vs 5,460,000) and ngrams. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey all - I disagree that these articles should have been merged. "Free verse" refers broadly to a category of form in English verse, but vers libre, in France, refers both to the form itself and a discrete literary movement within French Modernism, more specifically within French symbolism. Vers libre was a specific experiment undertaken by poets like Stéphane Mallarmé, Charles Baudelaire, and Arthur Rimbaud and constitutes its own school of thought. No such corollary exists in English-language poetry. I don't think there's anything wrong with maintaining a "vers libre" section on the page given that English-language free verse does evolve directly from the vers libre movement, but vers libre should retain its own page as a distinct movement in French poetry. If there are no objections, I plan to restore the former page. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Disclosed COI
Hi! My name is Noah, and I work for the Harold B. Lee Library at BYU. I'll be working on this page. Please feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns regarding any of the changes I make, and feel free to review my user page for questions regarding my background and my COIs. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Citation Needed
"Free verse does not 'proceed by a strict set of rules … is not a literary type, and does not conform to a formal structure.'" Do we have a citation for this? I'm not a fan of the "citation needed" tag, so I thought I'd ask the talk-page before sullying the article with that ugly marker. Noah Hickman (BYU) (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Free verse


text:
User talk:Choxden

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

title: User talk:Choxden


text:
Sunset Tunnel

The Sunset Tunnel, originally known as the Duboce Tunnel, is a 4232 ft-long light rail/streetcar tunnel in San Francisco, California. The tunnel runs under the steep hill adjacent to Buena Vista Park and is used exclusively by the N Judah Muni Metro line.

The eastern entrance is located at Duboce and Noe streets on the south side of Duboce Park in the Duboce Triangle neighborhood, and the western portal is located in Richard Gamble Memorial Park near the intersection of Carl and Cole streets in the Cole Valley neighborhood.

Initial proposals
Bion J. Arnold proposed a Mission–Sunset Tunnel in his Report on the Improvement and Development of the Transportation Facilities of San Francisco of March 1913. In Arnold's scheme, the Mission–Sunset Tunnel would start at Eureka Valley station, which was proposed as the transfer station for passengers needing service through the Twin Peaks Tunnel. The Mission–Sunset Tunnel would serve as a feeder bringing rail, automobile, and pedestrian traffic from the Panhandle region to the planned Market Street subway. It would also improve service to the Sunset District from the Mission and other areas south of Market, as existing routes were circuitous or limited.

Arnold's plan called for a two-level tunnel, with a road and pedestrian tunnel similar in cross-section to the Stockton Street Tunnel above a two-track rail tunnel. Depending on the planned alignment and portal locations, the length of the Mission–Sunset Tunnel proposed by Arnold would have been 3720 –.

However, further work on a tunnel to the Sunset District was postponed in favor of completing the Twin Peaks Tunnel, which opened to revenue service in June 1918. Soon afterwards, in July 1918, a Sunset Tunnel alignment matching the as-completed route along Duboce Avenue was proposed.

After the San Francisco Board of Supervisors appropriated funds for a tunnel into the Sunset in September 1921, City Engineer M.M. O'Shaughnessy was tasked with recommending a final alignment. He considered four routes, of which two relied on surface routes (one of these would run north from Laguna Honda), one was based on Arnold's 1913 proposed routing from the Eureka Valley station, and one matched the proposed Duboce route from 1918; of these four, O'Shaughnessy preferred the Duboce route as noted in a November 1921 Board meeting. The Board approved the Duboce alignment in a resolution passed on May 31, 1922 which also established the special assessment district. The route was opposed by several supervisors, who favored surface routes, but those were over the objections of Sunset residents, who preferred "the shorter and most direct [Duboce] route".

Construction and opening
Funds for test bores were set aside in June 1922 and the City Engineer's report, including detailed plans and estimated costs, were filed three months later in September. As planned, the tunnel would be 4250 ft long and would cost US$1500000 1922. The final route was not approved until April 6, 1925, due to "protracted political discussion."

The contract for the Sunset Tunnel was awarded on May 10, 1926 for the low bid of US$1247592 1925, submitted by the Youdall Construction Company, who broke ground on the project on June 10, 1926. As designed, the Sunset Tunnel was 4232 ft long including approaches with a grade of 3%; inside, the width was 25 ft and the vertical clearance was 18 ft above the top of the rail. The total length of the two open cuts for the approaches was 261 ft; the tunnel was driven largely through serpentine rock. The tunnel was constructed using three drifts: a pilot drift at the crown, and two at the side walls. The pilot drift was accelerated in order to provide ventilation and to explore the geologic formations, and that crown drift was "holed-through" less than a year after groundbreaking, on March 11, 1927. Construction of the tunnel was completed on February 4, 1928 for a total cost of US$1477618 1928. After the tunnel was nearly complete, a contract was awarded to build the rail line, but work was halted under an injunction that lasted from October 1927 to May 1928.

The tunnel was opened for revenue service on October 21, 1928 in a ceremony presided over by Mayor James Rolph. The new "N" line recorded the second-highest gross revenues of all streetcar lines shortly after opening. Both the Twin Peaks and Sunset tunnels were credited with spurring development in the Sunset District, with many of the homes built by Henry Doelger in the 1930s and 1940s.

Intrusion
Access to the tunnel is restricted to San Francisco Municipal Railway light rail trains only. Despite the access limitations, this tunnel is not well protected, and has been vandalized, copper cable has been stolen, and graffiti has been painted on the surfaces. From time to time, automobile drivers manage to drive their cars into the tunnel, including four separate incidents in February 2017 alone.

Trackway Improvement Project
The Sunset Tunnel Trackway Improvement Project replaced tracks and repaired key equipment inside the tunnel, including a new overhead contact system, fire sprinkler valve refurbishment, seismic upgrades, and rebuilt platforms at 28th Avenue. The work, which started in November 2014, was originally planned to finish by June 2015, but was not completed until October 2017. During some weekends, the tunnel was closed and N Judah was short-turned at Church & Duboce. Buses were used to continue service to Ocean Beach. A combination of additional needed work that was discovered during construction, plus nearby residents challenging a night work permit, resulted in delays to the project and an additional $4 million cost for a total of $23.3 million.

title: Sunset Tunnel


text:
Shibboleth (software)

Shibboleth is a single sign-on log-in system for computer networks and the Internet. It allows people to sign in using just one identity to various systems run by federations of different organizations or institutions. The federations are often universities or public service organizations.

The Shibboleth Internet2 middleware initiative created an architecture and open-source implementation for identity management and federated identity-based authentication and authorization (or access control) infrastructure based on Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML). Federated identity allows the sharing of information about users from one security domain to the other organizations in a federation. This allows for cross-domain single sign-on and removes the need for content providers to maintain usernames and passwords. Identity providers (IdPs) supply user information, while service providers (SPs) consume this information and give access to secure content.

History
The Shibboleth project grew out of Internet2. Today, the project is managed by the Shibboleth Consortium. Two of the most popular software components managed by the Shibboleth Consortium are the Shibboleth Identity Provider and the Shibboleth Service Provider, both of which are implementations of SAML.

The project was named after an identifying passphrase used in the Bible (Judges ) because Ephraimites were not able to pronounce "sh".

The Shibboleth project was started in 2000 to facilitate the sharing of resources between organizations with incompatible authentication and authorization infrastructures. Architectural work was performed for over a year prior to any software development. After development and testing, Shibboleth IdP 1.0 was released in July 2003. This was followed by the release of Shibboleth IdP 1.3 in August 2005.

Version 2.0 of the Shibboleth software was a major upgrade released in March 2008. It included both IdP and SP components, but, more importantly, Shibboleth 2.0 supported SAML 2.0.

The Shibboleth and SAML protocols were developed during the same timeframe. From the beginning, Shibboleth was based on SAML, but, where SAML was found lacking, Shibboleth improvised, and the Shibboleth developers implemented features that compensated for missing features in SAML 1.1. Some of these features were later incorporated into SAML 2.0, and, in that sense, Shibboleth contributed to the evolution of the SAML protocol.

Perhaps the most important contributed feature was the legacy Shibboleth AuthnRequest protocol. Since the SAML 1.1 protocol was inherently an IdP-first protocol, Shibboleth invented a simple HTTP-based authentication request protocol that turned SAML 1.1 into an SP-first protocol. This protocol was first implemented in Shibboleth IdP 1.0 and later refined in Shibboleth IdP 1.3.

Building on that early work, the Liberty Alliance introduced a fully expanded AuthnRequest protocol into the Liberty Identity Federation Framework. Eventually, Liberty ID-FF 1.2 was contributed to OASIS, which formed the basis for the OASIS SAML 2.0 Standard.

Architecture
Shibboleth is a web-based technology that implements the HTTP/POST [sic] artifact and attribute push profiles of SAML, including both Identity Provider (IdP) and Service Provider (SP) components. Shibboleth 1.3 has its own technical overview, architectural document, and conformance document that build on top of the SAML 1.1 specifications.

Shibboleth 1.3
In the canonical use case:

 * 1) A user first accesses a resource hosted by a web server (the service provider) that has Shibboleth content protection enabled.
 * 2) The SP crafts a proprietary authentication request that is passed through the browser using URL query parameters to supply the requester's SAML entityID, the assertion consumption location, and optionally the end page to return the user to.
 * 3) The user is redirected to either their home IdP or a WAYF (Where Are You From) service, where they select their home IdP for further redirection.
 * 4) The user authenticates to an access control mechanism external to Shibboleth.
 * 5) Shibboleth generates a SAML 1.1 authentication assertion with a temporary "handle" contained within it. This handle allows the IdP to recognize a request about a particular browser user as corresponding to the principal that authenticated earlier.
 * 6) The user is POSTed to the assertion consumer service of the SP. The SP consumes the assertion and issues an AttributeQuery to the IdP's attribute service for attributes about that user, which may or may not include the user's identity.
 * 7) The IdP sends an attribute assertion containing trusted information about the user to the SP.
 * 8) The SP either makes an access control decision based on the attributes or supplies information to applications to make decisions themselves.

Shibboleth supports a number of variations on this base case, including portal-style flows whereby the IdP mints an unsolicited assertion to be delivered in the initial access to the SP, and lazy session initiation, which allows an application to trigger content protection through a method of its choice as required.

Shibboleth 1.3 and earlier do not provide a built-in authentication mechanism, but any Web-based authentication mechanism can be used to supply user data for Shibboleth to use. Common systems for this purpose include CAS or Pubcookie. The authentication and single-sign-on features of the Java container in which the IdP runs (Tomcat, for example) can also be used.

Shibboleth 2.0
Shibboleth 2.0 builds on SAML 2.0 standards. The IdP in Shibboleth 2.0 has to do additional processing in order to support passive and forced authentication requests in SAML 2.0. The SP can request a specific method of authentication from the IdP. Shibboleth 2.0 supports additional encryption capacity.

Attributes
Shibboleth's access control is performed by matching attributes supplied by IdPs against rules defined by SPs. An attribute is any piece of information about a user, such as "member of this community", "Alice Smith", or "licensed under contract A". User identity is considered an attribute, and is only passed when explicitly required, which preserves user privacy. Attributes can be written in Java or pulled from directories and databases. Standard X.520 attributes are most commonly used, but new attributes can be arbitrarily defined as long as they are understood and interpreted similarly by the IdP and SP in a transaction.

Trust
Trust between domains is implemented using public key cryptography (often simply TLS server certificates) and metadata that describes providers. The use of information passed is controlled through agreements. Federations are often used to simplify these relationships by aggregating large numbers of providers that agree to use common rules and contracts.

Development
Shibboleth is open-source and provided under the Apache 2 license. Many extensions have been contributed by other groups.

Adoption
Federations have been formed in many countries around the world to build trust structures for the exchange of information using SAML and Shibboleth software. Many major content providers support Shibboleth-based access.

In February 2006, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) of the Higher Education Funding Councils of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland announced that it would move from the Athens authentication system to an access-management system based on Shibboleth technology. Since then it has updated its position and is endorsing a federated access management solution rather than Shibboleth itself.

title: Shibboleth (software)


text:
John McLaren Park

John McLaren Park is a park in southeastern San Francisco. At 312.54 acre, McLaren Park is the third largest park in San Francisco by area, after Golden Gate Park and the Presidio. The park is surrounded mostly by the Excelsior, Crocker-Amazon, Visitacion Valley, Portola and University Mound neighborhoods.

History
John McLaren Park was once a part of Rancho Cañada de Guadalupe la Visitación y Rodeo Viejo, an 1840 land grant which included much of present-day San Bruno Mountain, the city of Brisbane, Guadalupe Valley, and Visitacion Valley. The then-governor of Mexico (including present-day California), Juan Bautista Alvarado, granted what is now known as John McLaren Park to the local authorities in 1840.

In 1905, subdivisions of the land grant were drawn up and Daniel Burnham issued the Burnham Plan for San Francisco, which recommended that the land where John McLaren and Bayview Parks are today should be reserved for park use, as residents in the southern part of the city were considered inadequately served by access to park space. Burnham's Report called for several parks near Visitacion Valley, including one he named Visitacion Park, which would become Bayview Park and Candlestick Point State Recreation Area; and one he named University Mound Park, which occupied part of the land that would later become John McLaren Park. In the wake of the 1906 earthquake and fire, rather than implement Burnham's plan, city officials expediently rebuilt the city using the grids that had been previously laid out.

The Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution No. 26241, New Series on October 4, 1926 (approved Oct 15) directing the purchase of 550 acre for a park planned to be named Mission Park, with plans for an 18-hole golf course, equestrian trails, playing fields, and a possible relocation of the City Zoo. The Board would rename the planned park in honor of John McLaren's service to the city on November 29, 1926, and McLaren celebrated the dedication of the park in 1927, during a December tree-planting ceremony Boy Scouts participated in the planting of three separate plantings called “Memorial Redwood Groves.”. The widow of Luther Burbank donated ten four-year-old walnut trees to the children of the city. These trees, the first to be planted at McLaren Park, were intended to serve as the nucleus of a planned orchard of fruit and nut-bearing trees.

However, a US$2000000 1928 bond measure to raise funds for the full 550 acre area of the park failed to pass in the November 1928 election, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors would scale back the planned park size while acquiring properties from 1928 to 1946. In 1932, the Park Commission recommended a reduced park size of 428 acre. Additional recommendations for final park size in 1944 varied from 283 to 413 acre, and the land acquired by the time the Master Plan was published in November 1944 was 222 acre at a total cost of US$720000 1944. Several areas in the original 550-acre proposed park area were used to build the School and Convent of the Good Shepherd of San Francisco (the school, which was operated from 1932 to 1977, was later known as University Mound High School and served 'delinquent' girls), the Lick Home (later known as the University Mound Ladies Home, which opened as the Lick Old Ladies Home in a different location in 1884 and housed "elderly women of modest means" until 2014), the University Mound reservoirs, the Sunnydale Housing Project, and the Crocker Amazon Playground.

The Works Progress Administration was responsible for the construction of a scenic drive in the 1930s. At that time, the park also featured a stable and equestrian trails, but horseback riding within the park was later discontinued due to the difficulty of maintaining a separate set of equestrian trails. The current 318 acre park boundaries were established in 1946. A City Planning Department report, issued in 1950, recommended construction of a segment of the planned Crosstown Freeway, which was built as Mansell Street between Brazil Avenue and San Bruno Avenue; however, once Interstate 280 was completed, the Crosstown Freeway was cancelled. The park expanded to its present size in 1958 through land purchases.

Many of the present-day playgrounds, golf course, and hiking trails were added between 1950 and 1980. A draft master plan was prepared in 1983, updated in 1988, and issued in 1996, following a 1987 bond passed by San Francisco voters to allocate $2.4 million for major park improvements. The McLaren Park Vision Plan was approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission in 2017. Improvements associated with the plan include building the Redwood Grove Playground, Jerry Garcia Amphitheater improvements, renovation of McLaren Park Community Gardens, and adding a restroom at the Group Picnic area. The park is currently the second-largest park in the city's Recreation and Park Department system.

Public safety
In 1981, a San Francisco Examiner article headlined "McLaren Park: great potential, much trash" highlighted its crime statistics, which had included two murders, six rapes and 18 car thefts in 1980. In 2004, the San Francisco Chronicle noted the park's "disrepute despite the view", with stories about crimes "keep[ing] visitors away." In 2013, the San Francisco Chronicle's urban design critic John King discussed community efforts to revive the park, which "not long ago was known within the city primarily for crime". Perhaps due to its past infamy and resulting discouragement of visitors, the park boasts the largest grasslands left in San Francisco. In recent years the park has seen many positive improvements, and, as happens in Golden Gate Park, has had a few murders occurring in its less-frequented areas.

Amenities and features
Coffman Pool, McLaren Park's first recreation facility, was constructed in the southeast corner of the park in 1958. A master plan for the park was published in 1959 which called for the creation of more recreational facilities, including a 9-hole golf course (later named the Gleneagles Golf Course), overnight campsites, picnic areas, trails, a nursery, two lakes, and parking areas.

Construction of the facilities included in the 1959 Master Plan (The Gleneagles Golf Course, McNab Lake, Louis Sutter, Herz, and Mansfield-Burrows Playground, the Wilde Overlook, and the amphitheater—later to be renamed the Jerry Garcia Amphitheater) began in the 1960s, and also included new trails, picnic and parking areas, community gardens, and an irrigation system.

Before 1978, McLaren Park only had eight picnic tables. Later construction contracts included the addition of more picnic tables and large group picnic areas. Similarly, before 1977, the park only had 1.6 mi of improved trails, including sidewalks; 6.6 mi of trails were added by 1997, mostly following contour lines to limit path grades and the park could be fully circumnavigated by foot.

Even in San Francisco, a city considered hilly, McLaren Park stands out with some of the hilliest terrain in the city. Only 19% of its area consists of slopes of 0-10% grade, considered easily buildable. Slopes of 10-25% grade occupy half its area, and slopes over 25% grade occupy the remaining area (more than one-third of the total area). The original 1926 proposed park of 550 acre had approximately 40% of its area with gentle slopes.

Gleneagles Golf Course
The 9-hole golf course was completed in 1961. It occupies 60 acre and is operated by a leaseholder.

Herz Playground
Herz Playground, near Coffman Pool in the southeastern corner of the park, was completed in 1965.

Jerry Garcia Amphitheatre
The San Francisco Recreation Department constructed a multi-purpose outdoor amphitheatre in the center of McLaren Park in 1970 and named it the McLaren Park Amphitheatre; In 2005, it was renamed the Jerry Garcia Amphitheater, after the member of the rock band Grateful Dead, who had grown up not far from the park, at 87 Harrington Street. At the time, it had a capacity of 2000 seats.

La Grande Tank
La Grande Tank is a prominent blue 350000 gal water tank on the western edge of the park, visible from Interstate 280 and the Excelsior neighborhood. It was built in 1956 and stands 80 ft tall. During the seismic upgrades performed in 2006, money was set aside to improve what became the Philosopher's Way trail.

Philosopher's Way
A 2.7 mi loop trail around the perimeter of the park called Philosopher's Way was dedicated on 5 January 2013. The US$146000 2013 trail, funded as a public art set-aside by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, offers views of Mount Diablo, Mount Tamalpais, Angel Island, and the Pacific Ocean on a clear day. It was co-designed by artists Peter Richards and Susan Schwatzenberg and features fourteen stone markers by mason George Gonzalez intended as "musing stations" to stimulate contemplation.

Louis Sutter Playground
Louis Sutter Playground, near McNab Lake in the northeastern corner of the park, was completed in 1965.

Mansell Street
Mansell Street was a four-lane divided road running east–west across McLaren Park, roughly dividing it into northern and southern halves. It was completed in 1963 and had been used as a shortcut to Candlestick Point and occasional street-racing dragstrip, but it was reconstructed as a two-lane road during the Mansell Street Corridor Improvement Project, a US$6800000 2015 construction job lasting one year. One side of the road was rebuilt as a dedicated pedestrian and bicycle path, and crosswalks with bright flashing beacons were added to major intersections, allowing foot traffic between the north and south halves of the park.

Mansell Street through McLaren Park is significantly wider than the city streets it connects with on the western and eastern edges of the park. It was designed and constructed as a segment of the planned Crosstown Freeway which never came to fruition in the wake of the San Francisco Freeway Revolts.

Mansfield-Burrows Playground
Mansfield-Burrows Playground, near La Grande Tank in the northwestern corner of the park, was added in 1978.

Wilde Reservoir Overlook
The Wilde Reservoir Overlook, on the eastern edge of the park at the intersection of Mansell Street and Visitacion Avenue, was completed and opened to the public in 1981. The Wilde Reservoir was used to store tap water for the City of San Francisco, but after its abandonment, was used as a nocturnal dumping ground for trash. The old walls of the reservoir were retained as a viewing platform and a 35 ft tall tower was built in the center of it. However, as of 2013 the tower had remained padlocked and closed to the public since at least the late 1990s.

Yosemite Marsh
In the northeast corner of the park is Yosemite Marsh, a habitat for native species that include the forktail damselfly and flowering quillwort. Named a "significant natural resource area" by the city in 1995, the marsh marks the origin of Yosemite Creek, a body of water that flows through underground culverts towards Candlestick Point.

title: John McLaren Park


text:
USS Pearl Harbor

USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52) is a Harpers Ferry-class dock landing ship dock landing ship of the United States Navy. She was named for Pearl Harbor, where World War II began for the United States.

Pearl Harbor was laid down on 27 January 1995, by the Avondale Shipyards, New Orleans, La.; launched on 24 February 1996; and commissioned on 30 May 1998.

As of 6 September 2018, Pearl Harbor is homeported to NS San Diego, California, and assigned to Commander Amphibious Squadron 1 (COMPHIBRON 1).

Overview
The mission of the Landing Ship Dock (LSD) is to transport and launch amphibious craft, vehicles, crews and embarked personnel in an amphibious assault. An LSD can also render limited docking and repair service to small ships and craft, and act as the Primary Control Ship (PCS) during amphibious assaults. The well deck can hold two Landing Craft Air Cushions (LCAC) and a variety of landing craft and tracked amphibious assault vehicles. This provides Marines with added vehicle and cargo storage areas.

Service history
On 4 May 2008 the ship departed San Diego for assignment in the Persian Gulf as part of the Peleliu amphibious assault group. On 21 July 2008, Pearl Harbor was run aground on a shoal off of Kuwait without damage. Following the incident, Commander Xavier F. Valverde was relieved of command by Rear Admiral Kendall Card, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group 3, and reassigned to shore staff duty in Bahrain. Captain Mike Slotsky, deputy commodore of Destroyer Squadron 9 in Everett, Washington, was assigned to oversee the ship temporarily.

On 20 May 2010 the ship departed on a Western Pacific (WESTPAC) deployment as a part of the Peleliu Amphibious Readiness Group, where she participated in relief efforts following devastating floods in Pakistan in September 2010. Following her aid to Pakistani victims, she sailed south to Somalia where she conducted counter-piracy operations and lent aid to over 60 Somali refugees for over a month. She returned to her homeport of San Diego, California on 17 December 2010.

On 14 November 2011 the ship departed on a WESTPAC deployment as part of the Makin Island Amphibious Readiness Group. She returned to San Diego on 22 June 2012.

From May through August 2013, Pearl Harbor deployed independently in support of Pacific Partnership 2013, providing humanitarian aid to the island nations of Samoa, Tonga, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Marshall Islands, Kiribati, and Solomon Islands. On 15 April 2014, the ship entered an Extended Docking Phased Maintenance Availability (EDPMA) to complete her midlife overhaul. After numerous extensions due to unplanned growth work, Pearl Harbor completed her extensive overhaul in May 2016. The ship participated in Southern California Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) in July 2016 where it supported amphibious operations in conjunction with Australian, Canadian, Japanese, and German coalition partners under command of CDR Judd Krier.

In July 2017, Pearl Harbor departed on WESTPAC 17-2 as a part of the 15th MEU. Their main mission was the supporting of Operation Inherent Resolve. Pearl Harbor decomposited stateside on 7 March 2018.

In August of 2021, Pearl Harbor deployed with USS Essex (LHD-2) and her amphibious readiness group (ARG), along with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, recon marines from Maritime Special Purpose Force, Beachmaster Unit One and Assault Craft Unit 1. The mission was in support of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel and Operation Inherent Resolve for the Withdrawal of United States troops from Afghanistan (2020–2021).Pearl Harbor participated in theater amphibious combat rehearsals in Kuwait, Bahrain, Pakistan, Djibouti, and Somalia. While also operating with joint maritime forces of allied countries such as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel. The ARG then headed to the 7th Fleet in January, where the group teamed up with the Carrier Strike Group One in the South China Sea for expeditionary strike force operations.

Planned decommissioning
The ship was originally planned to be decommissioned, and placed in the Reserve Fleet sometime in 2024. However, the ship's life is now being extended.

title: USS Pearl Harbor


text:
Jake Weber

Jake T. Weber (born 12 March 1963) is an English actor, known in film for his role as Michael in Dawn of the Dead and for his role as Drew in Meet Joe Black. On television, he is best-known for playing Joe DuBois, the sleep-deprived husband of psychic Allison DuBois, in the popular drama series Medium.

In 2001 and 2002, Weber was a series regular in HBO's The Mind of the Married Man and made guest appearances on Law & Order: Criminal Intent and NYPD Blue. After a recurring role on Fox's The Following, Weber has had series regular roles on Hell on Wheels,  NCIS: Hawaii, and Homeland.

Early life
Weber was born in London, England, to Susan Ann Caroline (née Coriat), a British socialite, and husband Thomas Evelyn "Tommy" Weber (originally Thomas Ejnar Arkner), a racing driver who also came from a wealthy family. His father was born in Denmark, of Danish and English descent. Weber's maternal grandfather, Robert Coriat, who was born in Mogador, Morocco, was of Sephardic Jewish (Moroccan-Jewish) descent. Weber's maternal grandmother, Priscilla Weigall, was English, from an upper-class family. Priscilla's father was Sir William Ernest George Archibald Weigall, 1st Baronet, while Priscilla's maternal grandfather was Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st Baronet. Weber has one sibling, a brother Charley. Through his English maternal grandmother, Weber is a great-grandson of politician Sir William Ernest George Archibald Weigall, 1st Baronet and his wife, Grace Emily ( Blundell Maple), and a great-great-grandson of business magnate Sir John Blundell Maple, 1st Baronet and wife, Emily Harriet Merryweather.

Weber's mother, Susan, was diagnosed with depression and LSD-induced schizophrenia, and died at age 27 of a drug overdose when Weber was eight years old. His father, who sold various illegal drugs and utilized both his sons in trafficking, sold drugs to numerous international destinations and struggled with substance addiction until his death in 2006 at age 67.

In 1971, Weber's father took him and his brother to stay for a period at Villa Nellcôte, where the Rolling Stones were recording Exile on Main St. In a 2010 article for The Times, Weber recalled that his "father used him as a drug mule to bring cocaine out for Mick and Bianca Jagger's wedding."

Weber attended Summerhill School, Leiston, Suffolk. Later, he went to the United States to study at Middlebury College in Vermont, where he sang a cappella with the Dissipated Eight and majored in English literature and political science, graduating with a B.A. cum laude in 1986. He attended The Juilliard School's Drama Division as a member of Group 19 (1986–1990), which also included Laura Linney and Jeanne Tripplehorn. He also studied at Russia's famed Moscow Art Theatre.

At the 2010 Cannes film festival, as part of the Directors' Fortnight at the launching of the rock 'n roll documentary, Stones in Exile, singer Mick Jagger spoke to the crowd about the months of drug-fuelled recording sessions that produced the Stones' classic 1972 album Exile on Main Street. Jagger joked about the rarely seen original footage that reveals eight-year-old Weber rolling marijuana joints for them. Weber has reportedly stated that his drug-dealing father brought him to Keith Richards's rented French villa, Nellcôte, in the seaside town of Villefranche-sur-Mer near Nice, where the Stones were recording the album.

Career
Weber's roles were often bit parts in A-list films, beginning with that of Kyra Sedgwick's character's unnamed boyfriend in the Oliver Stone-directed period saga Born on the Fourth of July (1989) and continuing with work for such directors as Sidney Lumet (A Stranger Among Us, 1992), Alan J. Pakula (The Pelican Brief, 1993) and Martin Brest (Meet Joe Black, 1998).

He scored one of his premier leads as Dr. Matt Crower, a kindly physician who takes charge of a young boy and protects him from a possessed sheriff in actor-turned-producer Shaun Cassidy's short-lived, but well received, supernatural drama series American Gothic (1995) on CBS. That programme did not last long; and neither did the Mike Binder sitcom The Mind of the Married Man (2001), in which Weber played one of the leads, Chicago newspaper employee Jake Berman.

After his prominent role in the 2004 remake of horror film Dawn of the Dead, Weber played Joe Dubois on Medium, the sleep-deprived husband of Allison Dubois (Patricia Arquette), a psychic intermediary who has visions that help her prevent or solve crimes. In 2016, Weber played a recurring guest-star role as the psychotherapist husband of Detective Andrea Cornell (played by series lead Juliette Lewis) on the second season of the ABC murder mystery, Secrets and Lies. The series was picked up for a full second season by ABC after a successful limited run last spring as a midseason replacement. Weber had a recurring part on the Fox series, The Following, and improvised on the Netflix series Easy. Weber also appeared in seasons 6 and 7 of the Showtime series Homeland.

Weber was cast in the 2021 film Those Who Wish Me Dead. He has performed on Broadway and off-Broadway as well.

Personal life
Weber was married to Diane Oreiro from 1995 to 1997. In 2017, Weber married his longtime girlfriend, Korri Culbertson. Weber has a son, Waylon, from a previous relationship.

title: Jake Weber


text:
Hog Island

Hog Island may refer to:

Australia

 * Hog Island (Tasmania)

Bahamas

 * Former name of Paradise Island

Canada

 * Hog Island (North Channel) in the North Channel
 * Hog Island (Ottawa River) in the Ottawa River
 * Hog Island (Prince Edward Island), located off the northwest coast of Prince Edward Island

Falkland Islands

 * Hog Island, Falkland Islands

Guyana

 * Hogg Island, Guyana

Honduras

 * Cayos Cochinos, are sometimes referred to in English as the Hog Islands

India

 * Hog Island, Mumbai

Indonesia

 * Simeulue, historically known to European mariners as Hog Island

United States

 * Hog Island (Aleutian Islands), Alaska
 * Hog Island (Kodiak Archipelago), Alaska

 * Hog Island (Petaluma River), California
 * Hog Island (Tomales Bay), California
 * Hog Island (San Joaquin County), California

 * Honeymoon Island, in Florida along the Gulf Coast formerly known as Hog Island
 * Appledore Island, Maine, formerly known as Hog Island
 * Hog Island (Lincoln County, Maine), off Bremen
 * Hog Island (Calvert County), Chesapeake Bay, an island of Maryland
 * Hog Island (Dorchester County), an island of Maryland
 * Hog Island (Prospect Bay), an island of Maryland
 * Hog Island (Worcester County, Maryland), an island of Maryland
 * Spinnaker Island (Massachusetts), formerly known as Hog Island
 * Hog Island (Michigan)
 * Hog Island (Mohawk River), island in New York state also known as Isle of the Cayugas
 * Hog Island (New York), two islands by this name near the Rockaways
 * Translation of the Dutch name Varkens Eylandt, an old name for Roosevelt Island
 * Hog Island (Oregon)
 * Hog Island, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * Hog Island (Rhode Island)
 * Hog Island (Machipongo, Virginia), barrier island in Northumberland County, Virginia
 * Hog Island (Potomac), an island of the Potomac River
 * Hog Island Wildlife Management Area, peninsula into James River near Jamestown now in Surry and Isle of Wight Counties
 * Hog Island (Wisconsin)

title: Hog Island