text:
Acura RDX

The Acura RDX is a compact luxury crossover SUV produced by Acura, a luxury vehicle division of Honda, as the second crossover SUV offering from the brand after the mid-size MDX. Since it was introduced, it shared its platform with the Honda Civic and CR-V.

First generation (TB1/2; 2007)
Originally previewed as the Acura RD-X concept car, the production RDX had its debut at the 2006 New York Auto Show and went on sale on 11 August 2006. A facelifted 2010 model went on sale in August 2009, which featured the addition Acura's "power plenum" grille and a front-wheel drive option.

Engine
The first-generation RDX is powered by a 2.3-litre straight-4 turbocharged gasoline engine, rated at 240 bhp at 6,000 rpm with a torque peak of 260 ftlbf at 4,500 rpm. At the time, this was uncommon among Honda vehicles.

The K23A1 engine has all-aluminum construction, an i-VTEC head, and dual balance shafts. It was also one of the only four-cylinder powered luxury SUVs of its generation. Honda's variable flow turbocharger reduces turbo lag by using a valve to narrow the exhaust passage at low rpm, increasing the velocity of the exhaust flow and keeping the turbine spinning rapidly. At higher rpm, the valve opens to allow more exhaust flow for increased boost. The engine also features a top-mounted intercooler which receives air from the grille, channeled by ducting under the hood.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated fuel mileage is 19 mpgus city and 23 mpgus highway miles per gallon. An updated EPA mileage estimate in February 2007 rated the RDX at 17 mpgus city and 22 mpgus highway.

Drivetrain
The first-generation RDX featured a version of Acura's Super Handling All-Wheel Drive (SH-AWD) and a five-speed automatic transmission with Acura's SportShift sequential shift capability, activated by paddles mounted on the steering wheel for 2007-2009 models (additionally FWD was offered in some trims for 2010-2012 models). The paddles can be used in Drive (D) to make a gear change with the transmission returning to automatic mode as soon as the vehicle resumes a steady-cruise state. The Sport (S) setting has higher shift points and quicker downshifts, and using a paddle in “Sport” immediately puts the transmission in fully-manual mode. The four-cylinder engines in the first-generation RDX all use a timing chain, whereas the V6 installed in subsequent years (2013-2018) all use timing belts.

Interior
The vehicle's interior includes standard leather seating, a moonroof, automatic climate control, and all the expected power features. The RDX 7-speaker audio system features XM Satellite Radio, along with an in-dash 6-CD changer, which is capable of playing standard Audio CDs, and Data-CDs burned with either MP3 or WMA files, it also plays DVD-A type CDs.

Much of the interior technology originally introduced in the RL sedan was equipped in the optional "Technology Package". This package included Acura's navigation system, a backup camera, XM Nav-Traffic real-time traffic monitoring, and Zagat restaurant reviews. The package also featured a 10-speaker ELS Surround audio system with DTS and Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound. Both stereos included a 1/8" (a 3.5mm) auxiliary input jack used to plug in external sources such as iPods. For 2007, Acura also offered an iPod adapter for the RDX, which was wired into the glove box, and allowed the iPod to be controlled through the RDX's sound system interface. Due to hardware incompatibilities, the Honda/Acura iPod music link was discontinued for the 2008 model year. The 2010-12 models featured a USB connection that interfaces with iPods and other USB mass storage devices, such as flash drives that contain MP3, WMA6, or AAC music files while being stored in the center console.

Safety
The first-generation RDX was the second Acura vehicle to feature the Advanced Compatibility Engineering (ACE) body structure, which is designed to absorb energy from a collision. Standard safety features include six airbags, including dual front airbags, front side airbags, and dual-side curtain airbags. The front airbags use a dual-threshold, dual-stage technology that can adjust the timing and speed of each airbag deployment depending on the degree of impact and the driver's or front passenger's seat belt usage. If sensors deem the front passenger is too small (less than 65 lb), the front airbag is designed not to deploy. The front passenger's side airbag is also designed to shut off if a child or small-statured adult is leaning into the airbag's deployment path. In the event of a sufficient side impact or roll-over, the side curtain airbag deploys from above the door frames of the affected side, with coverage for both the front and rear occupants on that side, and stays inflated longer than if there were a collision.

Front seats feature active head restraints and their seat belts are equipped with pre-tensioners and force limiters. In November 2006, the RDX was crash-tested by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, resulting in a perfect "5 Star" rating for driver and passenger frontal crashes, and front and rear side impacts, along with "4 Stars" for rollover.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute (IIHS-HLDI) gave the 2007-12 RDX the grade of Good "G" for moderate overlap front test and side impact test. The grade of Marginal "M" was given for roof strength evaluation.

Second generation (TB3/4; 2013)
The second generation RDX was revealed during January 2012 at the North American International Auto Show going on sale in April. The turbocharged four-cylinder engine was replaced by a 3.5-liter V6 mated to a six-speed automatic, improving gas mileage to an EPA estimate of 20 mpgUS city, 28 mpgUS highway, and 23 mpgUS combined, by using variable displacement (VCM). The SH-AWD system was replaced with a simpler and less costly AWD setup.

A 5-inch display, tri-angle rear-view backup camera are standard, as well as keyless entry with push-button start. Also, standard Bluetooth hands-free calling and Pandora music can be streamed wirelessly into the audio system. When upgrading to the Technology package, a power tailgate is included, along with an upgraded 60-gigabyte hard disc (HDD) based navigation system with 8-inch screen, this system enables 15GB of music to be stored.

In China, the RDX is offered with two engines. A 3.0-liter SOHC V6 produces 263 hp at 6700 rpm and 220 lbft of torque at 4600 rpm, while the 3.5-liter SOHC V6 produces 273 hp at 6500 rpm and 254 lbft at 4400 rpm. Both engine choices come with either FWD or AWD.

2016 Facelift
The refreshed 2016 RDX was introduced at the 2015 Chicago Auto Show; sales began in mid-April. The updated RDX uses a slightly more powerful revised 3.5-liter SOHC V6 that produces 279 hp and 252 lbft of torque. The exterior adds LED headlamps (low and high beams, DRL pipe and amber turn signals) and LED taillamps. Additionally, the 2016 RDX includes several driver assists in the AcuraWatch package including Adaptive Cruise Control and Lane Keeping Assist System (LKAS). AWD was also updated to send up to 50% torque to rear wheels (on wet surfaces) opposed to up to 25% in the previous model.

Marketing
Acura and Marvel Entertainment, LLC, announced a joint promotional campaign with Marvel's The Avengers movie. Throughout Marvel's The Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. agents drive various Acura vehicles, including the MDX, ZDX, and TL models; the completely redesigned 2013 RDX was to make a cameo appearance in the movie but the scene did not make it in the final cut. However, the Acura NSX concept convertible sports car made an appearance in the movie.

Safety

 * 1 vehicle structure rated "Good"
 * 2 strength-to-weight ratio: 5.48

Third generation (TC1/2; 2019)
Acura debuted the 2019 RDX Prototype, on January 15, 2018, at the North American International Auto Show. Production of the RDX began in May 2018 at East Liberty, Ohio. The 2019 model arrived at dealerships across North America on June 1, 2018.

Equipment
An A-Spec trim was offered which added aggressive body modifications, metal paddle shifters, larger wheels, and optional red leather interior with black alcantara inserts. This was the first Acura car to feature the company's True Touch Pad Interface infotainment system which features a 10.2 inch widescreen HD display. It is operated by a touchpad which operates differently from a traditional touchpad (like the one found on a laptop). The touchpad uses absolute positioning, which would mean that the finger placement corresponds with the position of the screen.

New features include Active Damper system, 360-degree surround-view exterior cameras, panoramic glass moonroof, acoustic front door glass, head-up display 4-way power lumbar front seats, and 16-way power front seats. For the 2021 model year, Acura included a new limited-edition trim level, called the PMC Edition.

Engine
The 2019 RDX is powered by a direct-injected turbo 2.0-liter engine used in the Honda Accord, producing 272 hp and 280 lbft of torque. The front-wheel-drive 2019 RDX received an EPA fuel economy rating of 22 mpgus city/28 mpgus highway/24 mpgus combined mpg; the SH-AWD model, a 21 mpgus city/27 mpgus highway/23 mpgus combined rating.

Transmission
The 2019 Acura RDX is equipped with a 10-speed automatic transmission that's also used in the Honda Accord. According to Honda, this allows the RDX to take the turbocharged engine to its maximum capabilities during low-end torque. There are wheel-mounted paddle shifters.

 SH-AWD

The 2019 Acura RDX can be equipped with Acura's SH-AWD system, a full-time torque-vectoring system. The AWD system can send 70% of the power to the rear wheels as necessary and once it has arrived it can further be directed to a either rear wheel depending on the requirements. As of the 2024 model year, Acura dropped 2WD as an option.

Safety
The 2019/2020 RDX has been given an overall "G" or good rating by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Highway Loss Data. It was rated an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ in all trims except the Advance for 2019.

Motorsport
In June 2018, a one-off RDX made a race at Pike's Peak in Colorado a modified 2.0-liter turbo engine equipped with a 48-volt mild hybrid system and an electric supercharger, producing 350 hp engine. Other upgrades include 19-inch HRE race wheels wrapped in Pirelli racing tires, Brembo front brake calipers and racing pads, and a race-tuned suspension. Acura stripped out the interior to reduce weight and handling.

Facelift
In September 2021, the RDX received a facelift for the 2022 model year. Changes include new front and rear fascias, new exterior colors, new alloy wheel designs, interior receives increased sound insulation materials, and new interior features such as wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. There was a limited-production RDX PMC Edition for the 2022 model year was available limited at 200 units.

title: Acura RDX


text:
Brian Jordan

Brian O'Neal Jordan (born March 29, 1967) is an American former professional baseball and professional gridiron football player. Jordan played for the Atlanta Falcons of the National Football League as a safety from 1989 to 1991, and played for the St. Louis Cardinals, Atlanta Braves, Los Angeles Dodgers, and Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball (MLB) as an outfielder from 1992 to 2006. Jordan was an MLB All-Star in 1999.

Baseball and football
Jordan was a sports star at Milford Mill High School in Baltimore, Maryland, and he graduated from the University of Richmond. He was selected in the first round of the 1988 MLB draft by the St. Louis Cardinals. In the 1989 NFL Draft, he was taken in the seventh round by the Buffalo Bills but was cut in training camp.

While he played in the Cardinals' minor league system, Jordan also played defensive back for the Falcons from 1989 to 1991. He had five interceptions and four sacks in his brief NFL career. He led Atlanta in tackles and was voted as an alternate to the National Football Conference Pro Bowl team during the 1991 season.

In June 1992 Jordan signed a new contract with St Louis giving him a $1.7 million signing bonus to give up football and play baseball exclusively, ending his football career.

St. Louis Cardinals
Jordan made his MLB debut on April 8, 1992, with the Cardinals. He played mostly as a utility outfielder during his first three seasons, but in his first full year, in 1995, his stats included 145 hits, 20 doubles, and a .296 batting average in 490 at-bats. He also hit 22 home runs and 81 RBIs. He built on his success in 1996, hitting .310 with 104 RBIs and a .349 on-base percentage, playing mostly as the right fielder and cleanup hitter for the Cardinals. Jordan posted a .422 batting average with runners in scoring position (RISP), which became the Cardinals' all-time highest mark (the RISP statistic has been officially and reliably kept since 1974), until outfielder Allen Craig topped it in 2013. He also led the Major Leagues in batting average with the bases loaded. In the postseason that year, Jordan hit .333 in the NLDS and had a game-winning home run in Game 4 of the 1996 NLCS.

Shrugging off a 1997 season in which he suffered injuries and hit .234 with no home runs, Jordan scored 100 runs, hit 25 home runs, batted a career-high .316, and had a .534 slugging percentage in 1998.

Atlanta Braves
His stats in 1998 helped earn Jordan a $21.3 million contract with the Atlanta Braves. Jordan had a strong April and May to help carry the Braves early in the 1999 season. This propelled him to his only All-Star appearance. He finished the season with 100 runs again and drove in 115 runs. In the 1999 NLDS against the Houston Astros, Jordan batted .471, had the game-winning double in the 12th inning of Game 3, and drove in seven of Atlanta's 18 runs during the series. He contributed two home runs in the 1999 NLCS, but went 1 for 13 in his only World Series appearance.

Jordan's batting average and RBI totals dipped in 2000, but in 2001 Jordan hit 25 homers with a .295 average and was superb in the final games of the season, helping to push the Braves to their tenth-straight division title after a tight race with the Philadelphia Phillies and New York Mets.

Later career
He was involved in a multiplayer trade on January 15, 2002. Atlanta sent him to the Los Angeles Dodgers with pitcher Odalis Pérez for Gary Sheffield.

After a solid season in 2002 in which he hit .285, injuries decreased Jordan's playing time in 2003. Jordan signed a one-year contract with the Texas Rangers in 2004; he batted .222 and again missed chunks of time with injuries. In 2005, he returned to the Braves, spending most of the season on the disabled list with left knee inflammation while rookie sensation Jeff Francoeur took over in right field. Relying more on his veteran savvy than athletic ability at this point, he made the team again in 2006, but was again limited to a platoon role at first base before going on the disabled list. Jordan retired as a player after the 2006 season.

Career statistics
In 1456 games over 15 seasons, Jordan posted a .282 batting average (1454-for-5160) with 755 runs, 267 doubles, 37 triples, 184 home runs, 821 RBI, 119 stolen bases, 353 bases on balls, .333 on-base percentage and .455 slugging percentage. He finished his career with a .988 fielding percentage playing at all three outfield positions and first base. In 38 postseason games, he hit .250 (35-for-140) with 16 runs, 6 doubles, 6 home runs, 27 RBI and 11 walks.

Post-baseball
Jordan served as a TV pre-game analyst for the Atlanta Braves on Braves Live, the official pregame show on Bally Sports Southeast and Bally Sports South until March 2023. He is active in the Atlanta community with the Brian Jordan Foundation and authored the semi-autobiographical children's book I Told You I Can Play!

In 2009, he was named as a television commentator for the Gwinnett Braves, the AAA farm team of the Atlanta Braves. Jordan was paired with Josh Caray for a 25-game television schedule.

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

title: Brian Jordan


text:
Matt Ginter

Matthew Shane Ginter (born December 24, 1977) is an American former professional baseball pitcher.

Ginter was originally drafted out of high school by the New York Yankees in the 17th round (509th overall) of the 1996 Major League Baseball draft, but opted to attend college at Mississippi State. He was later drafted in the first round (22nd overall) of the 1999 Major League Baseball draft by the Chicago White Sox. He made his Major League Baseball debut with the White Sox on September 1, 2000, earning the win after tossing a scoreless eighth inning in a 9–8 win over the Anaheim Angels. Ginter then spent the next three seasons splitting time between Chicago and the minor leagues, appearing in a career-high 33 games in 2002.

On March 27, 2004, Ginter was traded to the New York Mets in exchange for outfielder Timo Pérez. He made his first career start on May 16 against the Houston Astros, allowing two runs (one earned) on eight hits in $5 2⁄3$ innings, earning a no-decision. He also recorded his first major league hit in the game off Roger Clemens. Ginter finished the season 1–3 with a 4.54 ERA in 15 games (14 starts).

On April 2, 2005, Ginter was traded to the Detroit Tigers for left-handed pitcher Steve Colyer. He made 14 appearances (one start) with the Tigers in 2005, going 0–1 with a 6.17 ERA.

Ginter signed a minor league contract with the Boston Red Sox on February 1, 2006. He began the season with the Triple-A Pawtucket Red Sox, and had a strong start to the season, notably pitching eight innings of two-hit shutout baseball on April 23. This start lowered his season ERA to 2.35 and his K/BB rate to 7. He was a strong candidate to be called up to the Red Sox to join the starting rotation, temporarily, while David Wells recovered from a knee injury. On July 1, Ginter exercised an out clause in his contract and became a free agent. At the time, he was 3–9 with a 3.64 ERA in 15 starts for Pawtucket. On July 9, Ginter signed with the Pittsburgh Pirates. He spent the remainder of the season with the Triple-A Indianapolis Indians, going 2–5 with one save and a 5.50 ERA.

On February 12, 2007, Ginter signed with the St. Louis Cardinals. Ginter began the 2007 season with the Triple-A Memphis Redbirds, posting a 2–6 record with two saves and a 4.06 ERA in 31 games (eight starts) before being released on August 17. He was later signed by the Milwaukee Brewers on September 1, and was assigned to their Triple-A affiliate, the Nashville Sounds. He became a free agent after the season.

On December 21, 2007, the Cleveland Indians signed Ginter to a minor league contract with an invitation to spring training. The Indians called Ginter up to start on July 12, 2008. In his first major league appearance in three years, Ginter went five shutout innings with five strikeouts to record the win. After spending time on the disabled list, Ginter was sent outright to the minors on August 25 and became a free agent at the end of the season. In January, he signed a minor league contract with the Milwaukee Brewers. He filed for free agency after the season.

He is not related to Keith Ginter, an infielder for MLB from 2000 to 2005.

title: Matt Ginter


text:
Resident Evil Zero

Resident Evil Zero (or Resident Evil 0) is a survival horror video game developed and published by Capcom for the GameCube in 2002. It is a prequel to Resident Evil (1996), covering the ordeals experienced in the Arklay Mountains by special police force unit, the S.T.A.R.S. Bravo Team. The story takes place in July 1998 and follows officer Rebecca Chambers as well as convict Billy Coen as they explore an abandoned training facility for employees of the pharmaceutical company Umbrella. The gameplay is similar to other Resident Evil games, but adds the ability to switch between characters to solve puzzles and use unique abilities.

Development for Resident Evil Zero began for the Nintendo 64 in 1998. The partner system was created to take advantage of the short load times possible with the capabilities of the Nintendo 64 Game Pak. The cartridge format also provided limitations, as the storage capacity was significantly less than that of a CD-ROM. The team had to approach the design differently from previous series entries to conserve storage space. Resident Evil Zero was designed to be more difficult than previous Resident Evil games. Inspired by Sweet Home (1989), the team removed the item storage boxes present in earlier games and introduced a new item-dropping feature. Production was switched to the recently unveiled GameCube after development slowed due to memory storage issues. Only the concept and story remained from the original game, which had to be rebuilt.

Resident Evil Zero received generally positive reviews. Critics praised the graphics and audio for building a haunting atmosphere. Opinions on the new partner and item systems were mixed. Some found the changes were an improvement and added new layers of strategy; others believed the changes were cumbersome or non-innovative. The controls were panned as outdated and Capcom was criticized for not evolving the series' tank controls. The game was ported to the Wii in 2008, and a high-definition remaster was released in January 2016; the rereleases received mixed reviews due to lack of improvements. Resident Evil Zero was commercially successful, having sold over 4 million copies across all platforms.

Gameplay
Resident Evil Zero is a third-person survival horror video game. The gameplay remains largely the same as previous entries in the series. However, unlike controlling one sole character like the previous games, the player controls two protagonists throughout the game. The player may switch between police officer and medic Rebecca Chambers and convicted former Force Reconnaissance Officer Billy Coen. If they travel together, either one of them can be controlled while the other character is handled by the game's artificial intelligence (AI). The player may also control both simultaneously or split them up to explore areas separately. Each character has unique abilities. Rebecca has a mixing kit which allows her to combine herbs and other chemicals, but she is weak defensively. In contrast, Billy can move heavy objects, use a lighter, and has higher defense, but cannot mix herbs (a staple ability in Resident Evil games). The partner system is central to solving many of the game's puzzles.

The characters can run as well as perform quick 180-degree turns to evade danger. The player may examine objects such as doors, other characters, and items in order to find clues to proceed through the game. Some objects can be pushed or climbed upon to investigate higher levels. Items held by the characters can be examined in the inventory screen. Some items such as weapons can be equipped, and other items can be combined to create more effective items or replenish ammunition. When Rebecca and Billy are close by, they can exchange items between one-another. Previous series installments had the player store items in boxes placed in fixed locations. Resident Evil Zero has no item boxes, and instead allows players to drop items on the floor, freeing space in the inventory momentarily until they are retrieved at a later point. The locations of dropped items are displayed on the game map. The number of items that can be dropped in a room is limited.

A bonus game, Leech Hunter, has Billy and Rebecca each collect leech charms in the Training Facility.

Plot
On July 23, 1998, a train owned by the pharmaceutical company Umbrella, the Ecliptic Express, comes under attack from a swarm of leeches. As the passengers and crew are attacked, a mysterious young man watches from a hillside. Two hours later, the Bravo Team of the Special Tactics And Rescue Service (S.T.A.R.S.), a tactical unit of Raccoon City Police Department's (R.P.D.), is sent to investigate a series of cannibalistic murders in the Arklay Mountains outside of Raccoon City. On the way to the scene, its helicopter has an engine failure and crash-lands in a forest. Searching the area, officer Rebecca Chambers of Bravo Team comes across the Express, now motionless. She begins to investigate the scene, only to find the passengers and crew transformed into zombies. She is unaware their transformation is a result of exposure to Umbrella's T-virus contained within the leeches. As she explores the train, she teams up with Billy Coen—a former Marine Force Reconnaissance officer, who was to be executed for killing 23 people until the military police van transporting him crashed in the region.

The pair notices the mysterious young man, moments before the train suddenly begins moving again. Unbeknownst to the pair, two soldiers from Umbrella, on the orders of Albert Wesker and William Birkin, attempt to take control of the train and destroy it, but are killed by leeches before they can complete their mission. As the train speeds out of control, Rebecca and Billy apply the brakes and avert its course towards an abandoned training facility for future executives of Umbrella. They discover that the former director of the facility and the corporation's co-founder, Dr. James Marcus, was responsible for discovering the so-called Progenitor virus in the 1960s, and decided to examine its potential as a biological weapon. He combined it with leech DNA to develop the T-virus that causes rapid mutations in living organisms and thus transforms humans and animals into zombies and monsters.

As the pair continue to explore the facility, Wesker decides to leave Umbrella and join its rival company, and makes plans for further research on the T-virus. William Birkin refuses his offer to join him, instead opting to complete his research on the G-virus. Later, Rebecca becomes separated from Billy. On her own, she encounters Captain Enrico Marini, who tells her that the rest of the Bravo team will meet up at an old mansion they found, but allows her to stay behind to find Billy. Just after Enrico leaves, Rebecca is attacked by the Tyrant. After temporarily defeating the Tyrant, Rebecca meets up with Billy again and, together, they defeat it and continue on towards a water plant.

Eventually, Rebecca and Billy catch up with the leech-controlling man, who happens to be Marcus' final experiment, the Queen Leech. In 1988, Marcus was assassinated on the orders of Umbrella's other co-founder, Oswell E. Spencer, who sought his research. After his corpse was dumped, the Queen Leech entered his body and reanimated it, gaining his memories and the ability to shapeshift, thus believing itself to be the resurrected Marcus and orchestrated the T-virus outbreak in the facility and on the train as a means of revenge against Umbrella. After temporarily defeating it, Billy and Rebecca attempt to escape to the surface via a lift, just as William Birkin trips the facility's self-destruct mechanism. Pursued by the Queen Leech, the pair eventually kill it and escape before the facility is destroyed. Following their escape, Rebecca notices the mansion that Marini mentioned and prepares to head for it. Before she does, she assures Billy that her police report will list him as another casualty of the incident. Thanking her for his freedom, Billy departs as Rebecca heads towards the mansion to seek out the whereabouts of her fellow Bravo Team members (seen in Resident Evil).

Development
While the original Resident Evil (1996) was still in development, the idea for a prequel came up shortly after the 64DD peripheral for the Nintendo 64 was announced in 1995. Following the 64DD's low sales four years later, Capcom developed Resident Evil Zero as a cartridge-based Nintendo 64 game. Capcom started development on the Nintendo 64 version in mid-1998, one of many Resident Evil games being developed at the time. One of these was Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000) which was taking full advantage of the capacities of the GD-ROM format. The Nintendo 64 cartridge could only store 64MB of data, one tenth that of a traditional CD-ROM. For these reasons, the team approached Resident Evil Zero with different ideas for gameplay and visual design that would function better with less storage space. After the script had been completed in early 1999, the production of a Resident Evil game for Nintendo 64 was revealed to the public by Yoshiki Okamoto, the president of Capcom's screenplay company Flagship.

Resident Evil Zero was designed to be more difficult than its predecessors, removing the item boxes to make the game more like Sweet Home (1989). The real-time "partner zapping" system was designed to take advantage of the console's unique features and strengths, namely the lack of load times, which are necessary for optical disc based gameplay as with the PlayStation. In an effort to make 1-on-1 zombie fights more intense, Capcom experimented with giving the zombies different reactions when they were shot and allowing the player to counter-attack when bitten. The team also toyed with faster zombies, a precursor to Resident Evil's crimson head enemies. The prototype also supported local co-operative play. Resident Evil Zero was officially announced at 20 percent completion in January 2000, after which it was presented with a playable demo at Tokyo Game Show. The game was expected to release in July 2000 and reportedly had an atmosphere close to the first Resident Evil, focusing more on suspense than the more action-oriented gameplay of Resident Evil 2 (1998). However, development began to slow down when it became apparent that the data for Resident Evil Zero would not fit on a single cartridge.

Production shifted to the newly announced GameCube, with the concept and story carried over but all of the data recreated. The platform change was confirmed in September 2000. The game's final version was developed primarily by Capcom Production Studio 3 with additional support provided by Tose. As a result of the transition to the GameCube, it was delayed so that the environments could be upgraded visually. More CGI videos were created as a result of the increased memory capacities, and the voice acting was re-recorded. The iconic sounds of the leeches were actually from recordings of cooking hamburgers. For the gun models, the modelling team was provided realistic-looking airsoft guns to base their designs from. Their designs were so close to the source material that the models, at first, featured replica markings and gas refill inlets. No one on the team noticed until half-way through development. Scenario writer Noboru Sugimura was called back to make some changes to the story. In the prototype's story, either Rebecca or Billy could die with the other character surviving and completing the game. This idea was scrapped as Rebecca dying would ruin the canon of the Resident Evil timeline. Billy was also originally designed in the prototype as a more ambiguous character, possibly becoming friend or foe as the story progressed. This idea was scrapped. The character designs were also adjusted: Rebecca for example lost her beret and shoulder pads while Billy received a new hairstyle. The GameCube's use of optical discs reintroduced load times, so the programmers had to use sophisticated programming to make the "partner zapping" system work. Capcom announced its intention to release a game demo in Japan around August 2002.

Release
Resident Evil Zero was released for the Nintendo GameCube on November 12, 2002, in North America, on November 21, 2002, in Japan and March 7, 2003, in Europe. In December 2008, the game was ported to the Wii along with Resident Evil (2002). The port, Resident Evil Archives: Resident Evil Zero, is near-identical but features a control system that supports the Wii Remote and the GameCube controller. For many years, the fate of the original Nintendo 64 prototype remained unclear. All that remained was low-quality video captured from the Tokyo Game Show in 2000 and magazine scans. In 2015, Capcom showed off the prototype while marketing the remaster and demonstrated new high-quality footage of it. The prototype remains unreleased to the public.

HD Remaster
On May 26, 2015, Capcom announced that a high-definition remastered version of the game was in development, Resident Evil Zero HD Remaster. The success of the high-definition remaster of Resident Evil inspired producer Tsukasa Takenaka to provide the same treatment to that game's prequel. Takenaka recognized that many Resident Evil fans preferred the old style of gameplay pre-Resident Evil 4, and so he reasoned that the HD remasters were to provide that same gameplay experience on modern hardware. The remaster was produced by Tsukasa Takenaka and the team was made up of many members from the original team, including director Koji Oda. Takenaka was glad Oda was on board, as this ensured Oda's original vision of the game would not be tarnished. Resident Evil Zero HD Remaster was released on January 19, 2016. A retail compilation called Resident Evil Origins Collection that includes Resident Evil HD Remaster and Resident Evil Zero HD Remaster was released on January 22, 2016. The game was released for the Nintendo Switch on May 21, 2019, along with Resident Evil and Resident Evil 4.

For the remaster, Capcom used the original 2002 models and textures from their archives. To Takenaka's surprise, the models and textures were actually designed in a very high quality and then downscaled for the original release. This meant that some assets had to be redone, as items that were intentionally blurry or illegible in the original were now much more clear and did not make sense in context, such as posters or signs in the environment. The models and textures were re-touched, and then the backgrounds were re-captured. Some backgrounds in the original also featured video effects such as fire. In the remaster, these videos were transitioned into 3D effects. Additional modes were added as well, including an easy mode and Wesker mode. In Wesker mode, the player controls Albert Wesker instead of Billy, and can move quickly and use special attacks. Other improvements include an upgrade to 5.1 surround sound, video options for both the original 4:3 ratio or a new 16:9 option, as well as more control styles including a modern non-tank-like control scheme. Overall, Takenaka felt that putting together the remaster for Resident Evil Zero was more difficult than that of Resident Evil, largely due to the companion function.

Reception
Resident Evil Zero received generally positive reviews after its initial GameCube release in 2002. The graphics and atmosphere were universally praised, being described as "wonderfully spooky" and "moody" with an "astonishing level of detail". Scott Steinberg of GameSpy noted how the animated backgrounds, such as flickering lights and dripping water, brought the environments to life. Giancarlo Varanini of GameSpot shared these sentiments, and complimented Capcom on how they were able to blend the game's models with pre-rendered backgrounds to create highly detailed visuals. The sound design was also complimented, with Matt Casamassina of IGN noting that "Capcom uses silence at times, too, to scare, which is brilliant." Varanini described the soundtrack as one "that will keep you in constant fear." Louis Bedigian of GameZone praised the sound effect work, such as thunder, gunshots, and footsteps for building a scary environment. The controls were universally panned as archaic, and the series was criticized for not evolving the control scheme to something more similar to Devil May Cry (2001) or Eternal Darkness (2002).

Critics had mixed reactions to the gameplay changes from previous series entries. Regarding the new item system, a critic from Game Revolution noted that it prevents the need to return to item boxes to empty inventory. However, he also noted a drawback, in that it introduces more backtracking to pick up an item that was dropped. Contrary to this, Mark MacDonald of 1UP.com praised it for eliminating the backtracking that slowed down previous series entries. Varanini from GameSpot gave credit to Capcom for attempting a new item system, but it is ultimately not too useful since it is easiest to drop all the items in a save location anyway. Casamassina of IGN called the system "perfect" and much better than the item boxes in previous games. Regarding the partner system, Varanini said that it works well, although he found the puzzles too simple and the companion's AI was lacking at times. Bedigian of GameZone praised the companion system for adding a new dimension to the Resident Evil series and it left him excited for future games. Steinberg of GameSpy liked the puzzles which required both characters working together, but he was not keen to fight alongside them, feeling like he was "babysitting" the other character due to weak AI.

Re-releases of Resident Evil Zero have received considerably less praise than the original, receiving mixed or average reviews. The Wii release was criticized for being a near-identical port of the GameCube version and for not fully using the Wii Remote's motion control capabilities, instead relying largely on the Classic Controller and remote/nunchuk combo. For the high-definition remaster, critics were impressed by the improved visuals but ultimately felt the game inherited the problems of the original. Peter Brown of GameSpot highlighted Wesker Mode as a fun addition and noted the game still "bears the hallmarks that made the original Resident Evil enjoyable."

Resident Evil Zero sold 1.25 million copies on the GameCube, and the high-definition remaster has sold 2.8 million units as of December 2020. The game was novelized into the book Resident Evil: Zero Hour by S. D. Perry and published by Pocket Books on October 24, 2004.

Awards
Resident Evil Zero was nominated for GameSpot's annual "Best Action Adventure Game", "Best Sound", "Best Story", "Best Graphics (Technical)", and "Best Graphics (Artistic)" awards among GameCube games.

title: Resident Evil Zero


text:
Chris J. Leaver

Christopher John Leaver (born 31 May 1942) is an Emeritus Professorial Fellow of St John's College, Oxford  who served as Sibthorpian Professor in the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Oxford from 1990 to 2007.

Education
Leaver was educated at Lyme Regis Grammar School and Imperial College London where he was awarded a Bachelor of Science degree (first class) followed by a PhD in plant physiology in 1966.

Career and research
Leaver's area of expertise is in plant biochemistry, development, plant physiology and signalling; before his current positions, he has at the Department of Botany and Plant Pathology at Purdue University and the University of Edinburgh. During his career, Leaver held the following positions:

 * Botanist on the Imperial College Hornsund expedition, Spitzbergen, 1962 and Beerenberg expedition, Jan Mayen, 1963
 * Fulbright Scholar, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States, 1966–68
 * Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh 1969–80:, promoted to Reader in 1980
 * Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC) senior research fellow 1985–90
 * Professor of Plant Molecular Biology 1986–1990
 * University of Oxford Sibthorpian Professor of Plant Science, 1990–2007
 * Head of the department of Plant Sciences 1991–2007
 * Fellow of St John's College, Oxford 1990–
 * Emeritus Professor of Plant Science, University of Oxford 2008–

Awards and honours
Leaver was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1986. His nomination reads:

Leaver was also awarded EMBO Membership in 1982, elected a member of the Academia Europaea in 1989 and appointed Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2000 New Year Honours.

Personal life
Leaver's Who's Who entry lists his recreations as “walking and talking in Upper Coquetdale” in Northumberland.

title: Chris J. Leaver


text:
Wizard (comics)

Wizard, in comics, may refer to:

 * Wizard (Archie Comics), an Archie Comics character
 * Wizard (DC Comics), a villain from the Golden Age of Comics and a member of the Injustice Society
 * Wizard (Marvel Comics), a Fantastic Four villain who has led a number of Frightful Four teams
 * Wizard (DC Thomson), a British comic that featured Wilson the Wonder Athlete and was merged to Rover
 * Wizard (magazine), a magazine about comic books

title: Wizard (comics)


text:
Rearrangement reaction

In organic chemistry, a rearrangement reaction is a broad class of organic reactions where the carbon skeleton of a molecule is rearranged to give a structural isomer of the original molecule. Often a substituent moves from one atom to another atom in the same molecule, hence these reactions are usually intramolecular. In the example below, the substituent R moves from carbon atom 1 to carbon atom 2:

Intermolecular rearrangements also take place.

A rearrangement is not well represented by simple and discrete electron transfers (represented by curved arrows in organic chemistry texts). The actual mechanism of alkyl groups moving, as in Wagner–Meerwein rearrangement, probably involves transfer of the moving alkyl group fluidly along a bond, not ionic bond-breaking and forming. In pericyclic reactions, explanation by orbital interactions give a better picture than simple discrete electron transfers. It is, nevertheless, possible to draw the curved arrows for a sequence of discrete electron transfers that give the same result as a rearrangement reaction, although these are not necessarily realistic. In allylic rearrangement, the reaction is indeed ionic.

Three key rearrangement reactions are 1,2-rearrangements, pericyclic reactions and olefin metathesis.

1,2-rearrangements
A 1,2-rearrangement is an organic reaction where a substituent moves from one atom to another atom in a chemical compound. In a 1,2 shift the movement involves two adjacent atoms but moves over larger distances are possible. Skeletal isomerization is not normally encountered in the laboratory, but is the basis of large applications in oil refineries. In general, straight-chain alkanes are converted to branched isomers by heating in the presence of a catalyst. Examples include isomerisation of n-butane to isobutane and pentane to isopentane. Highly branched alkanes have favorable combustion characteristics for internal combustion engines.
 * [[Image:N-pentane isomerization.svg|500px|Isomerization of pentane]]

Further examples are the Wagner–Meerwein rearrangement:
 * [[Image:Isoborneol2CampheneConversion.svg|500px|Wagner–Meerwein]]

and the Beckmann rearrangement, which is relevant to the production of certain nylons:
 * [[Image:BeckmannRearrangement3.svg|500px|Beckmann rearrangement]]

Pericyclic reactions
A pericyclic reaction is a type of reaction with multiple carbon–carbon bond making and breaking wherein the transition state of the molecule has a cyclic geometry, and the reaction progresses in a concerted fashion. Examples are hydride shifts

and the Claisen rearrangement:

Olefin metathesis
Olefin metathesis is a formal exchange of the alkylidene fragments in two alkenes. It is a catalytic reaction with carbene, or more accurately, transition metal carbene complex intermediates.

In this example (ethenolysis, a pair of vinyl compounds form a new symmetrical alkene with expulsion of ethylene.

1,3-rearrangements
1,3-rearrangements take place over 3 carbon atoms. Examples:

 * the Fries rearrangement
 * a 1,3-alkyl shift of verbenone to chrysanthenone

title: Rearrangement reaction


text:
User talk:Johnnyio

Hi, it is pretty obvious that you are Carlshooters. While using multiple accounts is, strictly speaking, not forbidden, it is not looked favorably upon as a way to subvert Three Revert Rule, as you have today with your many reverts to Ward Churchill. -- Viajero 21:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The edit you made of the Churchill page is full of outrageous biased claims and charges against Churchill. It in no way represents an attempt at NPOV. If you keep this up I will join with others to file a complaint.--Cberlet 21:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I note that your user page contains the text:

 * "Love out to Ward Churchill asswipe."

 * How can you claim to be seeking NPOV with that slur posted?--Cberlet 21:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Alert
Sorry i have no respect for sockpuppetts, you edits will be reverted and you will be reported. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:27, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Take your pity elsewhere
Hey, might I suggest that if you don't like the article you don't read it? When I have time I will add more history and the significant things that Young Left did. In the meantime someone else on here may contribute to it. There is a lot "poorer" articles on WikiPedia, so why don't you take your pity somewhere else? I think you have a real attitude problem and a bit too much time on your hands, even for someone on WikiPedia, and you should relax. And yes, I forgot to run it through spell check, and I am not a great writer. Not everyone has had the privilege of a bourgeois education. --Mista-X 04:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is most likely that this sock puppet troll is out for revenge, probably over the stuff in the Paul Robeson article with TDC. --Mista-X 04:26, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really? You tried to improve the article? How, when you seem to know absoutely nothing about YL, CPC, the left in Canada, or even Canada? You made an ignorant redneck stereotype remark about Canada, and claim you are being friendly. --Mista-X 04:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we please delete this account? This persyn has now lowered themselves to "Yo mamma'" insults on my talk page. --Mista-X 05:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern
Please don't make edits like this:. It does not add to the encyclopedic value of the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's no problem, but please don't revert without examining what you are reverting. I also reverted your changes at Pencil, where you inexplicably removed a large section of the article. Please don't do that again. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you are following User:Boothy443 and arbitrarily reverting his edits. In doing so, you are adding irrelevant text, removing sections of articles, and introducing errors. This type of behavior is not appropriate. If you have a quarrel with this user, I would be happy to help point you to dispute resolution. Please stop this type of editing, though, or you will be blocked. Feel free to ask me any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This comment, while not vandalism, is highly inappropriate. I would urge you to deal with other editors with civility and respect. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:01, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User has been tempbanned for 48 hours for personal attacks and vulgarity. Play nice from now on. AndyL 07:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see another admin has banned him permanently. AndyL 11:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnnyio


text:
Catforth

Catforth is a village in the English civil parish of Woodplumpton and the City of Preston district, in Lancashire, England. There is a village hall and the last remaining of Catforth's pubs, The Running Pump, is situated on Catforth Road, which is the village's main road. There is a Roman Catholic church and a primary school.

title: Catforth


text:
File:Hugh Blumenfeld - Mozart's Money.albumcover.jpg

Summary
Album cover for Mozart's Money, by Hugh Blumenfeld. From.


text: User talk:68.174.139.191

title: User talk:68.174.139.191


text:
Robinson v. California

Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law that criminalized being addicted to narcotics.

Background
Robinson was stopped by a police officer who observed "tracks" on Robinson's arms from heroin use. The officer claimed Robinson admitted that he had occasionally injected narcotics, though Robinson denied admitting this, and also denied being an addict. The police arrested him under California law making it a misdemeanor to "be addicted to the use of narcotics"; Robinson was convicted in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles, and sentenced to 90 days' imprisonment. Robinson appealed his conviction to the Appellate Department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, which upheld his conviction. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

California Health and Safety Code § 11721 provided: "No person shall use, or be under the influence of, or be addicted to the use of narcotics, excepting when administered by or under the direction of a person licensed by the State to prescribe and administer narcotics."

Previous Eighth Amendment rulings
Until the Robinson opinion, some Eighth Amendment decisions addressed whether the method of punishment was cruel and unusual. For example:

 * In Wilkerson v. State of Utah, the Supreme Court held that it was not a cruel and unusual punishment for the Territory of Utah to execute a criminal by shooting him, rather than the more common use of hanging. The Court said that cruel and unusual punishments include "punishments of torture" and cases "where the prisoner was drawn or dragged to the place of execution, in treason; or where he was emboweled alive, beheaded, and quartered, in high treason," as well as "public dissection in murder, and burning alive in treason committed by a female." But execution by shooting was not in the category.
 * In In re Kemmler, the Supreme Court held execution by electrocution not to be a cruel and unusual punishment. The Court said that "if the punishment prescribed for an offense against the laws of the State were manifestly cruel and unusual as burning at the stake, crucifixion, breaking on the wheel, or the like, it would be the duty of the courts to adjudge such penalties to be within the constitutional prohibition." But electrocution was not in that category.
 * In Trop v. Dulles, the Court held (5-4) that it was cruel and unusual to deprive a native-born citizen of his U.S. citizenship by reason of his conviction by court-martial for wartime desertion. The Court recognized that the death penalty would have been permissible, yet it said, "But it is equally plain that the existence of the death penalty is not a license to the Government to devise any punishment short of death within the limit of its imagination." The Court held that making Trop stateless was a cruel and unusual punishment because: "The punishment strips the citizen of his status in the national and international political community. His very existence is at the sufferance of the country in which he happens to find himself."
 * The last in this line of cases before Robinson was Francis v. Resweber. In Francis, the Court considered whether Louisiana could try a second time to electrocute a convicted murderer, after the first attempt failed because of a defect in the State's electric chair. The Court held, 5-4, that re-electrocuting the defendant Francis was not cruel and unusual.

However, in Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910), in which a punishment of twelve years in irons at hard and painful labor was imposed for the crime of falsifying public records, the Court held that the penalty was cruel in its excessiveness and unusual in its character (i.e., its disproportionality). The Court quoted obiter dicta by Justice Field in dissent in O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U.S. 323 (1892): "the inhibition was directed not only against punishments which inflict torture, 'but against all punishments which, by their excessive length or severity, are greatly disproportioned to the offenses charged.'". Justices White and Holmes dissented on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit excessive or disproportionate penalties. Weems may have been the earliest "disproportionality" Eighth Amendment holding.

Supreme Court ruling in Robinson
A fragmented Court reversed the state's judgment. The main opinion, by Justice Potter Stewart (joined by Justices Warren, Black and Brennan) in combination with Douglas's concurring opinion, recognized that drug addiction is a disease, and that it is unconstitutional to impose punishment for having a disease. Justice Stewart wrote that even "one day in prison for the 'crime' of having a common cold," would be cruel and unusual. Additionally, Justice Stewart's opinion, in combination with Justice Harlan's concurring opinion, held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize behavior in the absence of a guilty act, or actus reus. Justice Stewart's opinion focused on the unconstitutionality of punishing a mere status or condition, Justice Harlan's concurring opinion focused, however, on the unconstitutionality of punishing a "bare desire."

Justice Clark dissented, first, because "[p]roperly construed, the statute provides a treatment, rather than a punishment." Second, "even if interpreted as penal, the sanction of incarceration for 3 to 12 months is not unreasonable when applied to a person who has voluntarily placed himself in a condition posing a serious threat to the State."

Justice Byron White dissented. He argued, first, that "on this record, it was within the power of the State of California to confine him by criminal proceedings for the use of narcotics or for regular use amounting to habitual use." Second, the Court "has effectively removed California's power to deal effectively with the recurring case under the statute where there is ample evidence of use but no evidence of the precise location of use. Beyond this, it has cast serious doubt upon the power of any State to forbid the use of narcotics under threat of criminal punishment." Finally, he said that the Court was using "cruel and unusual punishment" as a disguise of "substantive due process":

"If this case involved economic regulation, the present Court's allergy to substantive due process would surely save the statute and prevent the Court from imposing its own philosophical predilections upon state legislatures or Congress. I fail to see why the Court deems it more appropriate to write into the Constitution its own abstract notions of how best to handle the narcotics problem, for it obviously cannot match either the States or Congress in expert understanding."

Robinson's death
By June 25, 1962, the day the Court handed down this decision, Robinson had been dead for more than ten months. In fact, he was dead before his appeal papers were filed in the Supreme Court. The California Attorney General's office discovered this fact upon remand and notified the Court, since this arguably mooted the case long before its decision. The Court, however, did not vacate the Robinson decision as moot. Justices Clark, Harlan, and Stewart dissented, arguing that settled precedent required dismissal for mootness.

Later cases in Supreme Court
Following the Robinson decision, the Court upheld a law criminalizing public drunkenness under Powell v. Texas, despite the argument advanced by some members of the Court that Robinson held that it was not criminal to give in to the irresistible compulsions of a "disease" (alcoholism).

In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the court declined to extend the argument in Robinson to laws prohibiting even homeless people from sleeping in public. In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas said that Robinson was wrongly decided. In a dissent, three judges argued that "sleep is not a crime" and based on Robinson, it is illegal to criminalize the status of homelessness.

"Disproportionality" cases based on Robinson
The first case in which the Supreme Court applied the expanded "cruel and unusual" principle of Robinson to cases in which the penalty was considered disproportionate or excessive relative to the crime was Coker v. Georgia. The Court held that, because of the disproportionality, it was a violation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to impose capital punishment for rape of an adult woman.

In Rummel v. Estelle, the Court held that it did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment to impose a life sentence, under a recidivist statute, upon a defendant who had been convicted, successively, of fraudulent use of a credit card to obtain $80 worth of goods or services, passing a forged check in the amount of $28.36, and obtaining $120.75 by false pretenses. The Court said that "one could argue without fear of contradiction by any decision of this Court that for crimes concededly classified and classifiable as felonies, that is, as punishable by significant terms of imprisonment in a state penitentiary, the length of the sentence actually imposed is purely a matter of legislative prerogative." Despite its unwillingness to find unconstitutional disproportionality, the Court conceded, "This is not to say that a proportionality principle would not come into play in the extreme example mentioned by the dissent, . . . if a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment."

In Solem v. Helm, a 5-4 majority set a conviction aside under the Eighth Amendment, because it was disproportionate—a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, imposed under a recidivist statute for successive offenses that included three convictions of third-degree burglary, one of obtaining money by false pretenses, one of grand larceny, one of third-offense driving while intoxicated, and one of writing a "no account" check with intent to defraud. The Court later characterized this decision as "scarcely the expression of clear and well accepted constitutional law."

In Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court examined the historical basis for the Eighth Amendment, found it based on the "cruel and unusual Punishments" provision of the English Declaration of Rights of 1689, and suggested that it is "most unlikely that the English Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was meant to forbid 'disproportionate' punishments." The judgment of the Court was that life imprisonment without parole for the crime of possession of more than 650 grams of cocaine did not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Later cases in lower courts
In State v. Margo, the Supreme Court of New Jersey first distinguished Robinson by stating, "In Robinson it was held that a statute of California which made it a criminal offense to 'be addicted to the use of narcotics' inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. But Margo "was convicted of being under the influence of a narcotic drug, heroin." Margo's conviction was not for addiction, as was Robinson's. The court then declared:

"We see no reason why, if a person may constitutionally be punished for using a drug, he may not be punished for being under its `influence,' for realistically the use of a drug offends society's interests precisely because of its baleful influence upon the person and the harm to which that influence may lead. In other words, being under the influence of a drug is itself antisocial behavior. It is not some latent or passive proclivity; it is an active state, voluntarily induced and laden with a present capacity for further injury to society. We think society may use the criminal process to protect itself against that harm. Robinson is not to the contrary."

The court therefore unanimously affirmed the conviction.

In Salas v. State, the defendant was convicted of being "unlawfully under the influence of a narcotic drug." The court affirmed the conviction because it considered the Robinson holding limited to addiction. Salas appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeal was dismissed "for want of substantial Federal question."

In State v. Brown, the Arizona Supreme Court (en banc) refused to hold the state without power to criminalize drug use. It said Robinson applied only to criminalizing addiction, not use or being under the influence. Here, "Brown was convicted of being 'under the influence of' a narcotic drug.'"

title: Robinson v. California


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vamp® - Your sweet beasts!

 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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vamp® - Your sweet beasts!
google has a hard time finding any text references to the magazine... google finds zero pages that link to the magazine (search term "link:www.vamp-magazine.com". Article creator is User:Ercsaba, which looks like a match with the magazine's editor Csaba L. Erőss. Feco 21:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) Note the similar VfD at Votes for deletion/Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Feco 19:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete this silly-titled magazine. The website exists, but has no Alexa rank at all!  Likely spam, certainly non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:53, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert. (We actually have an article that includes the registered trademark symbol?!) Mwanner 22:02, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete any article which tries to include a registered or copyrigted mark in its title. RickK 22:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Hey Wikipedia, this is not a vote but I just came across this. Vamp - Your sweet beasts! (different one and it is Not Safe For Work), Amateurpussycat and Vampsexkitten. --Anonymous Cow 01:16, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Also not a vote, is a comment: I seen also the Vamp - Your sweet beasts!, and I think somebody put new information about an European magazine. My opinion is, who made, correct his/her first time errors... However, we can delete, the Hustler, Playboy and the Penthouse pages, no?... Let's think a bit more... Mozsi 04:13, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see... Playboy.com has an Alexa rank of 785... the Vamp website has no Alexa rank at all (Alexa ranks the top 6 million sites or so). Pretty hard to compare notability between those two.  It's kind of like saying that if a comic character I created in kindergarten doesn't get an article, then we have to delete Superman and Spiderman too. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:16, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete strictly because of the registered copyright mark on its title. I doubt that anyone would type in that mark when trying to serach for Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Zzyzx11 | Talk 04:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as being advertising of own magazine (see nomination) and having no Alexa rank. Hustler, Playboy and the Penthouse are in a totally different league and far wider known across the world and made it into pop culture. Mgm|(talk) 07:55, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and its clones as self-advertising, and I agree, anything with registered trademark symbols in its name should be an automatic candidate for deletion - a legitimate article can handle trademark issues in the article body, if needed. -- The Anome 08:00, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the title without the registered trademark, if anyone can actually verify that this magazine is real and published in multiple languages keep, otherwise delete--nixie 08:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete any article with an ® in its title. Radiant_* 08:18, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - advertisement--Anonymous Cow 20:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for supreme non notability and ® in title. Thryduulf 16:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the other Vamp and keep that one.--Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Vamp - Your sweet beasts!. Megan1967 09:37, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.


text:
Thunder in Paradise

Thunder in Paradise is an American action-adventure television series from the creators of Baywatch, which stars Hulk Hogan, Chris Lemmon, and Carol Alt. This first-run syndicated TV series originally premiered as a direct-to-video feature film in September 1993, then ran for one season from March 25 until November 27, 1994, before being cancelled. In May 1994, during a taping of WCW Saturday Night, Hogan publicly expressed a desire to return to professional wrestling and hinted that he would no longer be a part of the show. The series was later rebroadcast on the TNT cable network.

Series concept
Thunder in Paradise follows the adventures of two ex-United States Navy SEALs, Randolph J. "Hurricane" Spencer and Martin "Bru" Brubaker, who work as mercenaries out of their tropical resort headquarters along Florida's Gulf Coast of the United States. Using their futuristic, high-tech boat, nicknamed Thunder, they travel around the world fighting various criminals and villains. They must also balance their dangerous undercover work with their responsibilities of raising widower Spencer's young stepdaughter Jessica, who lives with them.

Former model Kelly LaRue, who owns and manages the Scuttlebutt Bar & Grill on the beach in front of the resort, looks after Jessica whenever Spence and Bru go on their missions. Kelly also serves as a romantic foil for Bru. Edward Whitaker, Jessica's uncle, owns the beach resort and makes semi-regular appearances in the series, primarily for comic relief.

Main cast

 * Hulk Hogan as Randolph J. "Hurricane" Spencer
 * Chris Lemmon as Martin "Bru" Brubaker
 * Carol Alt as Kelly LaRue
 * Ashley Gorrell as Jessica Whitaker Spencer (episodes 4–22)
 * Patrick Macnee as Edward Whitaker
 * Felicity Waterman as Megan Whitaker Spencer (episodes 1–3)
 * Robin Weisman as Jessica Whitaker Spencer (episodes 1–3)
 * Russ Wheeler as The Voice of Thunder
 * Sam J. Jones as Pilot
 * Michael Andrews as The Beach Bartender

Recurring cast

 * Sting as Adam "Hammerhead" McCall
 * Kiki Shepard as Trelawny / DJ Moran
 * Heidi Mark as Alison Wilson
 * Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake as Brutus
 * Jim "The Anvil" Neidhart as Norman
 * Jimmy Hart as Jimmy

Home media

 * The pilot movie was originally released on home video the week of September 27, 1993. It was not broadcast on television until the beginning of Season 1, after which it was split into two episodes for reruns and later syndication.
 * The two-part episode "Sealed with a Kismet" was combined and released to home video as the feature Thunder in Paradise II.
 * The two-part episode "Deadly Lessons" was combined and released to home video as the feature Thunder in Paradise 3.
 * The two-part episode "The M.A.J.O.R. and the Minor" was used as the basis for the Thunder in Paradise CD-i interactive game. In addition to the episode itself, additional footage was filmed for use at different stages in the game. This game-exclusive footage was shot at the same time as the episode itself. Another video game based on Thunder in Paradise, this one from The Software Toolworks, was announced for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System and Sega Genesis, but never released.

In September 2006, Lionsgate released a DVD 3-disc Thunder in Paradise Collection that contained Thunder in Paradise ("Thunder in Paradise" Parts 1 & 2), Thunder in Paradise II ("Sealed with a Kismet" Parts 1 & 2), and Thunder in Paradise 3 ("Deadly Lessons" Part 1 & 2).

Filming locations
The Thunder in Paradise pilot movie was filmed in and around the historic The Don CeSar hotel in St. Pete Beach, Florida, during April 1992. When the series was picked up for a full season, the production company then moved to Disney's Hollywood Studios near Orlando, Florida, where the primary filming location became Disney's Grand Floridian Resort & Spa at Walt Disney World. Other filming locations at Walt Disney World included Disney's Old Key West Resort, Disney's Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground, and Epcot, used heavily due to the wide variety of futuristic and international architectural styles available at that theme park. The destruction of the school featured in the two-part episode "Deadly Lessons" was an actual controlled demolition of a school building in Central Florida that the production company agreed to perform in exchange for filming rights. Stetson University in DeLand, Florida was utilized for an episode.

Reception
On the release of the DVD collection in 2006, the series was reviewed by David Cornelius of DVD Talk: "It's 1990s television for action fans who can't handle the subtle nuances of Baywatch Nights. It's stupid, sexist, and embarrassing, but oh, how much fun it is."

Cornelius admits to giving the series a higher rating than usual, and selectively recommends it but warns that "those not so fond of Bad Movie fun, meanwhile, should obviously skip it". In 2008, Entertainment Weekly ranked it as the "cheesiest" syndicated TV series.

title: Thunder in Paradise


text: File:Zappa Bongo Fury.jpg

title: File:Zappa Bongo Fury.jpg


text: Template:Halloween (franchise)

title: Template:Halloween (franchise)


text:
Talk:Reciprocal altruism

Copyright
submitted by copyright holder. Ian Pitchford 21:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vampire Bat example
A biologist is needed to clarify what is meant by "blood sharing in the vampire bat". Perhaps an tag should be added, but the article overall is clear so I will just hope a knowledgeable person reads this talk page. --Halidecyphon 10:39, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My knowledge of the Wilkenson 1984 Blood sharing in vampire bats paper suggests that he made sweeping generalizations which have never been coroborated by further evidence. Does anyone know of another study which attempts to confirm that this example actually is a valid form of reciprocal altruism? I acknowledge that his study is cited by many animal behavior scientists as thee example of reciprocal altruism, but I am highly skeptical of his results. Riparian105 03:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"bats feed regurgitated blood to those who have not collected much blood themselves knowing that they themselves may someday benefit from this same donation"

I think that the word "know" sounds a bit anthropomorphistic. We are talking about a bat and as of now, we cannot say for sure whether a bat actually knows, or has any assumptions about future events ;)

Matthias Muenster

Reciprocity v Altruism
To me Reciprocal Altruism is either an oxymoron or a misnomer. In anthropology, altruism is without reciprocity or benefit of any kind. It is the ultimate act of selflessness, where cognitive acts of selflessness are disassociated from the act of altruism and there is no biological, cultural, political social, or economic benefit of any kind. Whether altruism extends to subconsciousness and therefore innate is arguable. Reciprocity is an assumption that a benefit is returned, either immediately, in the future, or to a common cause. The benefit may be direct or indirect. The act may benefit a cause, a family member, a friend, or something else the individual places value on. Anyway. . . I'll do my research and get back to this article. paradoxos 01:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The way reciprocal altruism is explained in this article is a misnomer. However, that is because this article missed an important point. Reciprocal altruism does NOT work under the explicit expectation of future reciprocity (then it wouldn't be altruism). It works spontaneously and without much initial calculation. People do it for no other reason than feeling good about helping others. The problem is that this articles doesn't distinguish between ultimate and proximate cause. The ultimate EVOLUTIONARY cause of this altruism is that it will benefit the organism through reciprocity, but this is NOT the proximate cause wired into the brain of the organism. Cheater detection kicks in once the other person has shown lack of willingness to help once situations have reversed. But again within the mind it doesn't become a rational calculation as such - it becomes more of an emotional sentiment such as "I wouldn't mind helping him now, but where was he when I needed him?". I'm also quite unsure of the claim that the GROUP of vampire bats excludes cheaters from blood sharing. As I understood it, it was more an individual bat to bat thing. But I'll have to read up on that. But this article is poorly written and needs a serious rewrite. I don't currently have Triver's original article, which would make it a bit easier. But I might give it a go one of these days anyway, if no one protests to any of my points. Esben Agersnap 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just gave it an attempt, improving the explanation of reciprocal altruism. It is however done from memory with access to any of my articles on the subject, so I might have uses slightly unconventional terms or ways of describing it. I do however think that the article now stands in much better shape than before, where it was bordering on factually wrong.Esben Agersnap 06:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just did a rewrite of the aspects of reciprocal altruism. I put them all in one section, since they don't seem to merit separate ones. The quotes were not attributed, so I removed them. I also tried to clean up the language and make it more understandable while keeping some of the jargon. I am not familiar with these writings, so I may have created some inaccuracies, but I think the end result is better, at least. wikitheo (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Axelrod and Hamilton
It would be worth mentioning and referencing the work of Axelrod and Hamilton. I am not qualified to append this type information, though.

A new article
We decided to improve the former article and to elaborate on the theory of Robert Trivers. Since reciprocal altruism hasn´t been shown yet (aside from human recirocal altruism)It was important to us to take out the incorrect example of the vampire bats, to give another two false examples and to explain why these examples don´t hold. The article was written as a project for our course in evolutional game theory and we would like to get feedback from you if you have any. Thanks,

Andreas Harraser and Gady Goldsobel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadale (talk • contribs) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 * Any additions must be sourced. See WP:VERIFY. Also, removing content that is properly sourced is not okay. Apart from that, you are rather free to edit the article, but bear in mind that edits can be reverted if deemed unconstructive. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Besides cited additions on the theory part the major changes have been in the examples, which are cited as well. The different views on the vampire bat example are suggested by the data, which is shown in the original paper and just seems to have been interpreted in a "wrong way". The elaboration on the other examples is taken from the papers cited in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harandre (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Warning calls
Is there a source for the claims in the section on warning calls, notably that warning calls are easy for predators to identify and that birds giving the calls are less likely to be attacked? This doesn't seem to tie in with the wiki article on 'Alarm signals'.86.162.219.153 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Altruism in conflictless situations.
Research on altruism focus far too much on situations with interest conflict, largely ignoring conflictless situations. In conflictless situations it is possible to do a favour with neither any personal gain nor any personal loss. When ethologists debunked the old theory of harmonious mutual aid in nature, they ONLY used arguments based on interest conflicts, making modern research on altruism perfectly valid in conflict situations, but leaving the old theory still valid in conflictless situations. The only thing that makes any scientific sense is to consider each situation separately to judge whether or not it contains conflict, with exceptions only for instrumental demonstrativeness conscious or semi-conscious about the existence of other situations (and then only if the being thinks about the other situation or a principle conditioned by the other situation or its analogs). The TV show Human Ape and the book The Ascent of Mind contains documentation of apes being egoistic in conflict situations but altruistic in conflictless situations. Most warning signals in animals are best explained by altruism in conflictless situations. They gain nothing on the warning, but lose nothing on it either, and mutual aid applies as long as there is no conflict and therefore no motifs for deception. Such warning signals are even common in animals that are not naturally social at all, and often extend to other species as well. This aligns with the fact that brains are based on statistical processing and not computer-like inflexibly specialized modules, showing that altruism and empathy are not specific modules but emergent behavior in conflictless situations. There is of course interest conflict and brutality in nature as well, but animal egoism, no matter how solitary the animal normally is, shall be understood as purely as a result of actual interest conflict, and patently NOT as simple indifference to others. There is however one factor involved in altruism that is uniquely human, and that is naïve dupeness. The oldest evidence of care for the sick and disabled is from Dmanisi, Georgia, shortly after proto-humans first left Africa, so it was the Great Decompression that ended rivalry among our ancestors. For almost 2 million years they successfully avoided competition with each other, and that lack of motifs for deception made the genetic memory of what it is like to be duped fade away. The last 7000 years of congestion and rivalry explains why the frequency of autism are increasing, natural selection now favour people with genetic memories of what it is like to be duped, slowly exterminating the uniquely human dupeness. 217.28.207.226 (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Criticism section needed
Surely there must have been some criticisms of the theory of reciprocal altruism, but the article does not mention these? Vorbee (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

In bacteria?
I am not sure that the examples in the "Bacteria" section are cases of reciprocal altruism; rather, they seem to be cases of symbiosis. Miguelferig (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Reciprocal altruism


text: User talk:68.33.180.208

title: User talk:68.33.180.208


text:
Ramón Martínez (infielder)

Ramón E. Martínez (born October 10, 1972) is an American former Major League Baseball utility infielder.

Early career
Martínez graduated from Escuela Superior Catolica High School and then attended Vernon Regional Junior College in Texas, where he played baseball and graduated in 1992. He was signed as an undrafted free agent by the Kansas City Royals on January 15, 1993.

Kansas City Royals
Martínez made his professional baseball debut with the Gulf Coast Royals in the rookie leagues in 1993 and rose through the Royals farm system with stops in Wilmington, Wichita, and Omaha.

San Francisco Giants
On December 9, 1996, Martínez was traded by the Royals to the San Francisco Giants for Jamie Brewington. He played with the Giants Double-A team in Shreveport and Triple-A teams in Phoenix and Fresno before finally getting his first shot at the big leagues.

Martínez made his major league debut on June 20, 1998, as the starting second baseman for the Giants against the San Diego Padres. He went 3 for 3 in his debut, with his first hit being a single off Mark Langston. He was the first Giant since Willie McCovey to register at least 3 hits in his first Major League game.

He remained on the Giants roster through 2002. The Giants used him as a utility player primarily, with occasional starts at second, shortstop or third.

Chicago Cubs
He left the Giants as a free agent following the 2002 season and signed with the Chicago Cubs, where he was their top infield reserve/pinch hitter for two seasons.

Detroit Tigers/Philadelphia Phillies
Martínez started the 2005 season with the Detroit Tigers and was traded on June 9 to the Philadelphia Phillies alongside Ugueth Urbina for infielder Plácido Polanco. He hit. 286 for the Phillies, who used him as their backup first baseman. Ramon's only home run with the Phillies was a grand slam off Horacio Ramírez on September 14, 2005, in a 12-4 Phillies win.

Los Angeles Dodgers
Martínez signed with the Los Angeles Dodgers prior to the 2006 season and spent the next two seasons as a utility player for the Dodgers, playing solidly in 2006 during injuries to starting second baseman Jeff Kent. His option was not picked up by the club after the 2007 season, but on January 29, 2008, they signed him to a minor league deal with an invitation to spring training. He wound up assigned to the minor league Las Vegas 51s to start the 2008 season, but was injured and spent several months on the DL.

New York Mets
He eventually returned to the 51s, but was released by the Dodgers on July 24 and was signed by the New York Mets to a minor league deal. He was called up late in the 2008 season. Martinez signed a minor league deal to rejoin the Mets on February 13, 2009.

title: Ramón Martínez (infielder)


text:
Talk:Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Untitled
I moved this to the correct title. --Myles Long 21:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was NOT a paramedic in this movie!
{spoiler} I changed the references to "Halloween: Resurrection" in the description of this film because I don't feel it's appropriate. I think that when discussing the plot of each film individually, we shouldn't use the retcon established in the following sequel. In the plot of Halloween: H20, it is definitely supposed to be Michael that Laurie decapitates at the end of the film, and not a paramedic. That idea was established to allow for another sequel after the success of Halloween: H20. VertigoXpress 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to start an edit war over this, but it is not logical to have an encyclopedia page on a film and take into consideration it's sequels when discussing the plot, especially when the plot device in the sequel is a retcon. Look up that word and maybe you'll see what I'm saying here. When Halloween: H20 was made, they absolutely did not intend that guy in the mask at the end to be a paramedic, it was intended to be Michael Myers. The paramedic gag was made up by the script writer of Halloween: Resurrection. Therefore, it doesn't belong in the article. VertigoXpress 07:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

 * It needs to be noted in the page though for it plain and simply wasn't Michael. SOADLuver 02:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right, it wasn't Michael...in Halloween: Resurrection. In this film, it was Michael. The script of Halloween: H20 makes no mention of the switch referred to in "Resurrection", so when discussing the plot of this film you have to take it on its own terms. I'm not against mentioning somewhere else in the article that the sequel established a retcon about it NOT being Michael at the end. However, the actual plot of the film shouldn't contain references to the sequel, especially since in this case, the idea of it being a paramedic in Michael's clothes and mask was an afterthought. Can we compromise and put it in the continuity section? Wanna write it? VertigoXpress 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Actually I added the info myself just to show you what I meant. If you want to edit it, go ahead. VertigoXpress 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

 * No I'm satisfied thank you for being reasonable. SOADLuver 21:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bold 46.211.77.24 (talk) 08:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Removed quote
Someone thankfully just removed this before I could, quoted here for public amusement:
 * "KMBC-TV called it quote "Sensational......., Smart and Non-Stop Scary......, Jamie Lee Curtis Truimpt Return....., and Finally a Sequel.......related/base/lives up to the original!!!!!."

If an American TV station actually had English that bad ("related/base/lives"??), I wouldn't consider them or their opinions a reliable source of anything. Not that that's even remotely likely. Indium 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Body Count
I just saw the movie, and I'm pretty sure that seven people die. The two teenagers, the old woman, the teenage guy, his girlfriend, Laurie's boyfriend, and M.M. So I replaced 6 with 7, and unless it's proven otherwise, I suggest that we keep it that way.Italian Robot 04:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous Paragraph
Is it just me or are there way, way too many punctual errors/disgusting sentences in the plot summary? Maybe it could read:

"The movie features the return of Laurie Strode, Curtis's character from the first two Halloween films (revealed to be living under the assumed name "Keri Tate"). As Tate, Laurie has a seemingly perfect life with an intelligent son, a dedicated boyfriend, and a great career as a head mistress at a private boarding school in Northern California. She continues to be haunted by the tragic events of 1978, however, and is far from happy. To everyone else this is "just another Halloween," but Laurie Strode will never see the holiday the same way.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the events of 1978, her psychotic brother and serial killer Michael Myers appears and starts killing off her co-workers and students one by one. For the first time in two decades they meet again. Laurie manages to escape, but instead of fleeing she returns to the school to challenge Michael in a fight to the death. She finds him and attempts to kill him several times. She finally pushes him off a balcony to his apparent death, a resolution similar to the first film.

The police arrive at the scene and put Michael's corpse in an ambulance in a body bag. Laurie steals the ambulance, unaware that Michael is still alive in the back. He escapes the body bag and again attempts to kill her. She slams on the brakes, sending him smashing through the windshield onto the dark road. She then tries unsuccessfully to run him over. The vehicle violently tumbles down a steep hill. When it comes to rest Laurie is uninjured while Michael is trapped between the ambulance and a fallen tree. He reaches out to her. She reaches for his hand but pulls back, remembering everything he's done to her and her friends. In a moment of justice and ultimate resolution she beheads him with an axe. Michael's severed head rolls down the hill." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.155.39 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. I was reading through it, and thought it was ridiculous that she would be living with a decapitated boyfriend. I think your version is definetly better suited to that section. --Repner1 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename the article
Shouldn't this article be renamed Halloween H20: Twenty Years Later (Instead of 20 years later)? --Bravo Plantation (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes
There is a lot of missing citations and information in this article that needs to be added to it.--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: ❌  Dr Strauss   talk   18:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Halloween H20: 20 Years Later → Halloween H2O: Twenty Years Later – The film is called Halloween H2O: Twenty Years Later, the real and proper title. Based of the film's poster itself and it's H2O not H20 as the title refers. 175.144.126.35 (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC).
 * Based on the American Copywrite office, it was titled "Halloween H20: 20 years later. The poster does say otherwise: here as you suggested however. I'm a little torn, but I'm leaning towards the "20" as even the intro in the films opening credits says 20 Years Later.Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

 * Support move, The title is confusing, between H2O (with the letters H and O along with the number 2 in the middle and meaning for water) and H20 (with the letter H and the number twenty), the H2O one works better along with the subtitle replaced the number with the word as a real title. 115.135.77.81 (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have struck this vote as obvious ballot stuffing by the IP editor who began the discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Most reliable sources have it as H20 with a zero, not H2O with the letter O. As for the 20/Twenty in the subtitle, I honestly have no idea.  ONR  (talk) 01:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No case to answer. Sources support the current title. Andrewa (talk) 12:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cleanup and Expansion
This article is poorly written and sourced, and requires significant attention. The article contains information that isn't formatted properly and needs to be rewritten so that it's properly formatted to Wikipiedia's standards. The "Continuity" section is one such section which is composed of bullet points rather than a well written paragraph and should be rewritten and added to the production section as it pertains to the film's production in a sense. The "Reception" section is way too short and requires significant expansion, with more reviews from notable critics to be added to it. There is also information in the article that is unsourced and either needs to be removed or given proper citations when necessary. This article, like all articles, has potential but it just needs a little work on it in order for it to meet Wikipiedia's guidelines and standards of a well developed and properly sourced article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Halloween H20: 20 Years Later