text:
Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates/Archive 2

Previous discussions are archived here:

Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 1 Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and series boxes/Archive 2 -

Synergy
Some thoughts...

Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.

Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.

For beautiful example of this, check out Template:United States and Category:U.S. states. And notice how the U.S. states category contains at least eleven lists. The template provides quick and meaningful navigation, the lists provide additional information and alternate sorting, and the category provides overall organization and links to related groups of topics.

That is synergy.

- Pioneer-12 06:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all, You appear to have done something that destroyed the ability to edit this talk page by section. Somehow, now the correct sections nolonger appear in the edit screen. Can you fix this problem?

Next, this is not what I asked for. I do not want a lecture. I would like for you to actually write the proposed text, rather than lecture me about it. In other words, I would like for you to actually contribute to the writing of this proposed text. Other editors should also participate.

So, why don't we start all over again at the very bottom of this talk page, and actually write text that could actually be inserted in the project page in lieu of the present list of advantages and disadvantages from the point of view of abilities (as your previously wrote on this topic). I am having trouble visualizing how this might actually look.

And, finally, synergy is only one small part of this proposal rather than the entire point. The major part is the listing of categories, lists, and ASB from a abilities point of view. I would assume that would then lead to a section of instructions regarding merging lists into categories, etc., etc., -- John Gohde 14:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * First of all, bug be gone. :-)

 * Next, this wasn't supposed to be article-ready text, but rather an explanation that could hopefully lead to article-ready text. A mini-essay, if you will. You call it a lecture, which implies a negative connotation when not in a university setting. Whatever. Just giving my thoughts on the matter.

 * Finally, I'm not sure what you're planning. Adding a couple of paragraphs on synergy? Moving all of the abilities sections to their own section? Adding something about when to turn lists into categories?

 * This is getting to be very tiresome. I would like to get back to actually discussing issues directly pertaining to the article. I have given my thoughts on synergy and how it applies here. I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts on this. What do you think of the example? I think it should be in the article. - Pioneer-12 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages
The contents of these sections have been bouncing around like a caffeine addict doing the Hokey Pokey. So many things have been moved in and out of these sections I'm not sure what should be in there any more. I think it would be helpful if people made a list, on a seperate page, of all the things they think should be listed in these sections, instead of reverting minor changes back and forth. I would especially love to compare Snowspinner's list to John Gohde's list. - Pioneer-12 03:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the sort of thing this talk page is for? The following subsections are from the 16:29, 10 Apr 2005 version of the article (one back from current - I couldn't figure out how to get an invariant URL for the current version).  How about if in these sections we propose additions in italics, keep the current ones in regular text, and use strikethrough font for ones we decide to delete (no actual deleting allowed), and comment here before changing the article text?   I added an advantage to lists (not following these conventions) listed below in italics, which is the difference between what's below and the current article.  -- Rick Block 01:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages - Abilities of categories

 * 1) Auto-linking. Create a link to a category on an article page, and a corresponding link to that article will be visible on the category page.
 * 2) Multi-directional navigation. A category can contain multiple subcategories, and can also be part of several categories. They naturally organize into a web of knowledge. (See folksonomy.) Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Fundamental.
 * Proposed change - The statement simply is not true, since webs of knowledge created with lists or ASBs are easier to use do a better job of presenting the information. -- John Gohde 08:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the reasoning here. Even if categories were harder to use (and I don't think the real issue is ease of use, it's attractiveness of presentation), this does not make the statement untrue. How about Categories are organized within Wikipedia into a web of knowledge starting with Category:Fundamental? --- Rick Block 13:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * *Can somebody please show me this web of knowledge created by categories? Where exactly is it? Does it fit nicely on one page or over 200? -- John Gohde 20:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where it's written, but I believe the intent is that all articles will be added to at least one category. Per WP:CG, all categories except for category:fundamental are supposed to be parented by at least one category.  Assuming both of these have been done wih a modicum of intelligence, any article within wikipedia should be linked to any other (by category traversal "up" toward fundamental and then back "down" via some other branch).  Of course, the same argument can probably be made about regular links within articles but links within articles have no hierarchical relationship to a well defined "root".  Does the "web of knowledge" induced by categories fit on one page?  No.  Does it fit on 200?  Who knows, but probably not.  -- Rick Block 21:45, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely, it is not that mess in Categories? Where is the page where only the highest of highest levels of categories are displayed?  It does not exist, does it? Kind of proves my point don't it? I shall repeat, where is this web of knowledge displayed with categories? -- John Gohde 22:01, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not understanding the issue. From category:fundamental (a category page, not an article page), one can (in theory) traverse via subcategories to a category containing any article.  Hence, all articles are "linked" via some linkage of the form article -> category -> supercategory -> ... -> category:fundamental -> subcategory -> ... -> subcategory -> article. -- Rick Block 22:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone else have any comments on this change. Going once ... -- Rick Block 04:20, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Going twice... -- Rick Block 03:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are good for categorizing items that are likely to change. Thus, categories are ideal for tracking items like best selling books, NPOV articles, and current events.

Disadvantages of categories

 * 1) Alphabetical order only (though you can control the alphabetisation).
 * 2) Their purpose may not be immediately apparent to new visitors to Wikipedia, since their names, being short, are not very descriptive of their key role in navigation on Wikipedia.
 * 3) Categories are not operational on most mirror sites.
 * 4) No formatting control over how articles and categories included in a category are shown.
 * Addition of this item to the page was reverted by user:David Gerard as instruction creep. I suggest generalizing the first item to include this notion, perhaps Category listings are automatically generated, in alphabetical order (though you can control the alphabetisation), with no editor control over formatting.  -- Rick Block 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia's redirect feature cannot be used to create differently named, but functionally identical, categories.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 01:53, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The default user skin places the display of categories at the very bottom of an article. Thus, visitors may not be even aware of their existence.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Can we combine this with #3 above ("Their purpose many not ...")? -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, this weakness should stand on its own or at least come first. Look at the main page that uses template:Categorybrowsebar.  This is precisely why they use template:Categorybrowsebar instead of categories Category:Fundamental. The question is simply this. Why not just place Category:Fundamental in the main page as categories are supposed to be used? Nobody would see Category:Fundamental if it was used in place of the current usage of template:Categorybrowsebar which also supposedly uses categories in a prohibited manner (ie, as a hyperlink)? And, also, nobody would have a clue as to what they are looking at. -- John Gohde 20:52, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Being constantly recreated on a realtime basis, categories put an operational hardware drain on Wikipedia that has the effect of slowing the responsiveness of Wikipedia down.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) When only a backup copy of Wikipedia is available for viewing due to server problems, categories are not operational whereas lists still offer an older version to navigate with.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is effectively the same as the previous one and should be combined. -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A category cannot be edited collectively as one single page, even if annotated categories are being used. Editors must travel all over Wikipedia in order to changed a category, rather edit the category directly itself.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 07:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is the dual of advantage #1. I'd restate it so the relationship is much more obvious. -- Rick Block 14:06, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The reason an article is included in a category must be self-evident since there is no opportunity to visibly annotate within an article why it is included in a specific category.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As category usage increases many articles, particularly biographical articles, end up being added to many categories resulting in a large list of category memberships. Display of the category membership listing, and due to the use of templates which include articles in categories even the ordering of this listing, is not under user control.
 * Proposed addition. -- Rick Block 12:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are wasted on categorizing items that are not likely to change. Thus, categories should not be used to track items that will never change, like ancient Greek philosophers.

Advantages - Abilities of lists

 * 1) Lists can be annotated. That is they can include additional information beyond the item name. For example, a list of soccer world championship teams can also list when the championship was won.  This ability can be used to explain why a particular article is included in a list, which is sometimes useful for sensitive or controversial lists.  This also allows a list to include similar, but not quite identical, types of articles that might require multiple categories.  One example might be nominees for an award.  In a list, the winners can be indicated.  Conveying the same information in categories requires separate categories for winners and non-winning nominees.
 * Add the bit about similar, but not identical. -- Rick Block 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists can include items for which there are no articles (red links); categories can only list things for which there are articles, unless stubs are created.
 * 2) List items can be sorted using a variety of methods and can be manually formatted like any other wikipedia article. An article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list, or shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories.
 * Proposed formatting addition. -- Rick Block 04:13, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists that intelligently show relationships are easier to use than their respective category.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I would change "easier to use" to something like more comprehensible and include this in the previous item. I think this follows from the ability to control the formatting. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- John Gohde 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Just like the index of a book, an article can be listed several times or in different ways in the same list.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Not in quite these words, but this seems to be already mentioned in #3, above. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) ''It often desirable and physically possible with a list to have an article shown both in its major category as well as in several different subcategories.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned above, in #3. -- Rick Block 14:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It should at least be stressed more in #3 as this is explicitly prohibited in the implementation of categories by this guideline. This fact makes categories less comprehensible. -- John Gohde 21:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) As currently implemented, lists which are file based put less of an operational hardware drain on Wikipedia then categories which continuously have to be created on a realtime basis.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 06:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) All lists could be linked together, creating a web of knowledge, by use of a complete set of glossaries in the form of annotated lists. With a little work, list of glossaries could be developed into a complete web of knowledge.
 * 2) Static categorization schemes, like lists, are excellent for listing items that are not likely to change.
 * Proposed addition -- John Gohde 04:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages of lists

 * 1) Not auto-linked, as categories are.
 * Proposed change - Do we really need to say that not having the properties of a category is a disadvantage? And, why is this property being singled out? To me, not being auto-linked is clearly an advantage rather than a disadvantage. -- John Gohde 08:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Lists are often redundant with categories. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a significantly better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.
 * 2) Redundant lists are potentially subject to being deleted, merged, or redirected to the preferred use of a category. In order not to be redundant, a list must do a better job of presenting the articles than the respective category.
 * Proposed change -- John Gohde 07:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages - Abilities of article series boxes

 * 1) Provide a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no standard format).
 * 2) Faster to navigate than a category.
 * 3) Although controversial, navigational boxes can be used as an extended see also footer for geographical articles containing direct links to multiple types of articles (cities, counties, etc.).
 * Propose addition. -- Rick Block 04:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The presence of an ASB within an article encourages the reading of articles shown within the respective box.
 * 2) A number of ASB's have already been developed that provide a complete web of knowledge, such as Browse by overview and Browse.
 * Proposed additions -- John Gohde 07:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) * I would like to add that of the the three choices, a blue box does the best job of presenting the web of knowledge on Wikipedia to the public in a form that is very compact and comprehensible. Thus, the artifical restriction of Snowspinner of restricting ASBs to just linear series is just plain stupid and should be dropped. -- John Gohde 21:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disadvantages of article series boxes

 * 1) Almost always replaceable with a category. It can be difficult to give more detail than a category can give without the box becoming unmanageably large.
 * 2) Article series boxes are often considered unsightly. Multiple boxes are generally considered a blight.
 * 3) Often inadvertently push a POV — suggesting that one aspect of a topic is more important than others, being used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places, or asserting project proprietorship. Many templates go to WP:TFD because they appear to push POV. People often add more series boxes to try to remedy this, exacerbating complaints of unsightliness.
 * 4) Wikipedia's NPOV policy might mean that multiple ASBs would be required in some articles in order to avoid the appearance of promoting only one point of view.
 * Proposed change -- John Gohde 07:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT!
Isn't it queer than when categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, that our beloved Main page doesn't have a single category on it? Isn't it odd, that Main page uses a list, and a template no less, to organize the entire web of information on Wikipedia? Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that plain old lists are easier to use than categories?

Clicking on Article overviews produces one of those dreaded ASBs which just happens to do an even better job of helping visitors to Wikipedia find what they are looking for. Likewise, clicking on BROWSE produces a very useful ASB. Compare these two ASBs to Category:Fundamental and try to tell me that the category does a better job of presenting its respective information!

Clicking on SCIENCE unfortunately produces a category which is nothing but a total mess of unorganized information. A bulleted list, intelligently showing relationships, or an ASB would do a much better job.

Categories naturally organize into a web of knowledge, NOT! -- John Gohde 23:00, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Categories DO naturally link together into web of knowledge. The concepts of "every article belongs in a category" and "every category belongs in a category" facilitate this. It's true that they don't necessarily form a well-organized web--but this is due to the distributed nature of Wikipedia: Just like as article takes skill and effort to become high quality, a well organized web of categories takes skill and effort. - Pioneer-12 05:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Objections to proposed additions
I like very little of the proposed additions. Some might be appropriate for a discussion page on the advantages and disadvantages of categories, lists, and/or series boxes, but let's remember that that's not what this page is. This page is a guideline on how and when to use each one. Massive lists of advantages and disadvantages - particularly when some of them are as idiosyncratic as these (Don't work during server downtimes - applies, what, four days a year?) make this harder, not easier. Most of these seem to me to be Instruction creep rather than helpful expansions. Snowspinner 13:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please discuss each one individually. The point of listing them all here (on the talk page) is to provide a record of the discussions and, I hope, provide a more controlled mechanism for adding to and/or changing the actual list on the guideline page.  I believe the feedback is that at least some editors are not happy with the guidelines as currently written and being bold has resulted in an unmanageable number of changes to the guideline page.  -- Rick Block 14:50, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have to say, "discuss 13 changes individually when a blanket objection to the idea of adding to this page without good reason" and "controlled" don't seem to go together to me. How about I go on record opposing all additions that are not offered with substantive justification for the instruction creep. As a general rule, I oppose additions that go beyond identifying an area of difference and a broad statement of the nature of the difference. So I would prefer "lack of control over how categories are ordered" and "Inability to annotate individual entries" to a description of every effect of these. Yes, the inability to annotate means they need to be obvious. But that's overly specific for the guideline. This is not Philosophy of categories - it's a functional guideline. The onus is on the proposal to show that it aids in functionality, and is not just using a guideline page to conduct a philosophical discussion on systems of organization within an encyclopedic project. For these things, meta and talk pages exist. Snowspinner 16:25, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed. The onus is on the people trying to triple the length of the page to show why this is a good idea. Read instruction creep and try to learn its message. Conciseness is essential in a usable guideline - this is supposed to be something an editor can refer to quickly and get a good idea of how common sense works out in this area. Omit needless words. - David Gerard 17:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not suggesting we triple the size of the guideline page. I am suggesting we discuss potential additions before changing the guideline page.  Perhaps I came to the party late, but from what I can tell user:Snowspinner and user:John Gohde both have valid points, but have essentially stopped listening to each other.  I'm trying to help by providing a place (here) where both can be heard.  Snide comments (from an arbitrator!) are not helpful. -- Rick Block 20:10, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think David was being snide here. It's just that... well... John has never really offered an explanation for his additions, beyond his clear hatred of categories. And so before I spend time getting into a thirteen-pronged discussion with him over each and every one of his additions, I want him to actually offer an explanation of them - what do they add that is both of general yet non-obvious interest that is not covered elsewhere. Why do they make the decision of which organizational system to use clearer rather than more opaque and complicated. I don't really have time to spend arguing points that John can't be bothered to articulate in the first place. These are basic questions that need to be answered whenever somebody is trying to add to a policy or guideline. Snowspinner 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * My apologies if I offended; I wasn't meaning to come across as being snide. I was, however, intending to come across as blunt. Instruction creep is bad. A guideline must be concise. Read instruction creep and hack away at excess verbiage in guidelines - David Gerard 18:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Conciseness is good. As "The Elements of Style" recommends, "Omit needless words." However, beware of oversimplification--guidelines need to be concise AND thorough. This isn't meant to be a summary; this is meant to be an explanation. Things need to be spelled out (but spelled out in the most straightforward way possible).

 * Thus: "Omit needless words, but don't omit needed words." or "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Pioneer-12 22:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

m:Instruction Creep

 * On a side note, I don't know why everyone keeps referencing Instruction creep. That page is about the "how to use this page" instructions found on pages such as Village pump and Featured article candidates. It's not meant as a style guide or as a commentary on Wikipedia guidelines in general. - Pioneer-12 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I comprehensively disagree. It applies to anything that's instructions, and that certainly includes guideline pages - David Gerard 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Instruction creep is not even a part of Wikipedia. If it was that important, it would be a part of Wikipedia. -- John Gohde 02:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, I recently took a closer look at meta and it appears to be just a colossal garbage dump. Meta's main page does not even indicate clearly what meta contains. There is no apparent meta web of knowledge. But, getting back to my original point.  What do Wikipedians go by: NPOV or NPOV?  Quite obviously, we go by NPOV.  The same logic applies to Instruction creep.  If there was any merit to your comments, you would be referencing Instruction creep.  It don't exist. Therefore your point is mute and you are exercising bad faith for even bringing it up. -- John Gohde 19:53, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we do go by NPOV. And we know that we have to go by NPOV because of Foundation issues. Snowspinner 20:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, Fred Bauder's fork Wikinfo project uses a sympathetic point of view rather than NPOV. So, what? Unless you show a direct connection to Instruction creep, your reply is besides the point. -- John Gohde 20:23, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that Meta contains pages that apply to all of the Wikimedia projects. So, while NPOV applies only to en, Foundation issues shows us five rules that must apply to all projects hosted by the Wikimedia foundation. Other pages on meta like Instruction creep. MPOV and Don't be a dick are important also - not because they're policy, but because they're really good ideas. Snowspinner 20:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Says, you and David, but no one else. Itis really very simply, if there was any merit to your comments, you would be referencing Instruction creep just like you can reference NPOV. Furthermore, as both you and I have painfully pointed out Foundation issues does not include any reference to Instruction creep. Ergo, it is not required to be used in Wikipedia per your own words that you just wrote above. -- 01:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ummmm... what? Foundation Issues are five things that Jimbo and the Foundation have said are non-negotiable for a project to be hosted by the Foundation. That doesn't mean that they're the only generally applicable pages. Instruction creep is bad on any Wikipedia, and so it goes in Meta. It's not foundation-mandated, but that doesn't mean it's somehow a good idea, any more than Don't be a dick is bad advice because it doesn't stem from the Foundation. Snowspinner 13:09, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Another Freudian slip, I suppose? -- John Gohde 06:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you understand what Meta is. Snowspinner 02:52, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you understand the implications of referencing meta? I can, also, quote Larry Sanger from Meta . Meta is not Wikipedia. Just thought that might want to know. -- John Gohde 04:07, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm. I think we all agree that Instruction creep is not official policy but is something worth considering. More important, though, is: What exactly do you think it is saying? If you think it's saying "omit needless words--keep instructions concise" then I agree with that principle. If you think it's saying "Less detailed instructions are inherently better" then I completely disagree.

 * Actually, I think the page is misnamed; it should be called "Procedure creep", as it is more about tedious bureaucratic procedures then helpful "how-to" instructions. (Reread it if you don't believe me.) - Pioneer-12 07:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that this guideline should be as big as it is required to be and no smaller. Furthermore, we have just begun to make this guideline useful. I still want a separate section discussing synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. The real work has just begun. Otherwise, this whole guideline should be deleted as so far it is clearly redundant and totally unnecessary. -- John Gohde 20:42, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Feel free to mark it for VfD, John. I think you'll find, though, that this would be considered a violation of WP:POINT by a lot of people. Snowspinner 22:05, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Speaking of getting bigger, Categorization clearly mandates that this guideline is supposed to cover infoboxes per . -- John Gohde 23:43, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Issues with the current guidelines
Here are my issues with the current guideline page: I wouldn't say I hate categories (yet) - a large percentage of my more than 10,000 edits on wikipedia are category-related. On the other hand, I definitely think categories are currently overused and it pains me that there isn't a guideline to point to to justify WP:CFD votes for deletion in cases like category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film). I'd like this guideline to be the place. Categories ARE useful, but so are lists and so are navigational templates (and not just for series!). -- Rick Block 20:03, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The article essentially starts with a "how to" for categories repeated from WP:CG.  Not only is this redundant, but it reinforces the notion that categories are the most desirable option.
 * 2) The article fails to mention performance implications.  Perhaps we should get a comment from a developer, but from what I can tell large categories are essentially BAD for wikipedia and led to the 200 articles per page limitation.
 * 3) The article at least strongly implies the first choice organizational method should be category ("the policy on lists is generally fairly permissive").   IMO, categories have gotten to the point where they are ridiculously overused.  For example, see category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar Nominee (film), a category for films casting a non-winning nominee for the best supporting actress oscar (note to cburnett if you're reading this - it really isn't anything personal).  I listed this category at WP:CFD, but there were no votes either way.  There is no guideline I can point to to support my contention that this is a ridiculous way to organize these articles and, in this case, a list should be used (see, for example, List of Best Supporting Actor nominees and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films)).
 * 4) The article fails to mention a number of significant advantages and disadvantages and doesn't exactly hit the essence of some that it does mention.  Specific examples:
 * 5) *Category disadvantage #1 - the crux of this is that category listings are automatically generated in alphabetical order, 200 entries per page. You can control the order, but nothing else.
 * 6) *Category disadvantage #2 - not only is their purpose not readily apparent, their very existence is not readily apparent since with the default skin they are listed at the bottom of an article (often following a large chunk of whitespace).
 * 7) *Category disadvantage not mentioned - no real way to provide synonyms (redirects) for categories.
 * 8) *Category disadvantage not mentioned - the list of categories an article is in (as opposed to the category listing itself) is auto-generated with no editor control of the formatting (including the order due to template-based categorization).
 * 9) *There are more, but I don't have time to re-list them all here (see above, and I'll admit that not all of the additions proposed above are significant).
 * 10) Wording for some of the advantages and disadvantages that are listed could stand to be improved.

 * I basically agree with your issues listed in this section. But, I still want a separate section added that discusses synergy and redundancy and precisely how editors are supposed to know when a list or ASB should be deleted or merged into a category. It is very important that redundancy be precisely defined and how one is supposed to know when redundancy occurs be explicitly pointed out even if some editors think that it is self-evident. -- John Gohde 04:23, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advantages... or abilites?
This page is a guideline on how and when to use each method. In order to know how and when to use each method, I need to know what each method can and cannot do. That is, I need to know the abilities of each method. The purpose and utility of the "advantages" sections is to let readers clearly know the abilities of each method.

However, some people have seen these sections as a competition and as a podium to show that "categories are good" or "categories are bad". (How silly!)

Perhaps it would be better if the advantages sections were renamed "Abilities". This would:
 * 1) More directly relate to what the readers are looking for.
 * 2) Make the content of the sections more objective and concrete. (An "advantage" can be a matter of option. An ability is a matter of fact.)
 * 3) Reduce arguments over what should and should not be in those sections. (I hope.)

- Pioneer-12 22:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I do believe that the idea is to modify the above blue box on the talk page until a consensus is reached. So, I suggest that you implement your above suggestions in the blue box. -- John Gohde 23:52, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Section titles changed... but I think the entire box's content needs to be reevaluated using the perspective of "abilities". We may need a new box. (And the "blue box" is grey, not blue, in my browser. :-p) - Pioneer-12

 * I wasn't too happy with the additions of the 'advantages/disadvantages' lists going in (did I mention how much I hate instruction creep?), but they're looking useful (e.g. how to avoid your shiny new template becoming a candidate for WP:TFD) - David Gerard 01:18, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Focusing on abilities will also make these sections shorter and more cogent, as non-ability related items will be removed. It also, I think, makes the "disadvantages" (or "lack of ability") sections unnecessary. They could be replaced with notes on "when not to use".

Being shorter and to the point should make a number of people, including Dave Gerard, Snowspinner, and myself, happy. - Pioneer-12 20:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replace "Disadvantages" with "When not to use"
Here you go. This fits in with the whole abilities point of view. I think these sections should replace the current "disadvantages" sections. Interestingly, by thinking in terms of abilities and "when to use, when not to use, and what to use instead", you see how these tools complement instead of compete with each other. It's synergy, baby! - Pioneer-12 22:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When not to use categories
When it is a grouping that it not a "classification" or a grouping that requires annotations. In these cases, use a list instead.

When it is a grouping mainly for navigational convenience. In these cases, use a navigational template instead.

When not to use lists
When it simply duplicates a category and adds no meaningful annotations. In there cases, use a category instead.

When not to use navigational templates
When articles that are in the same subject but not meaningfully related to each other. For example, Eli Whitney, Adolphe Sax, and Levi Strauss are all inventors, but they have have no significant connection to one another. Navigational templates should only be used when one would want to directly navigate from one topic to other. For general classification, use categories.

For long lists of items. If a navigational template is too large, it clutters up an article and distracts from the article-specific content. In these cases, the template should be converted into a list or category.

Proposed rewrite of project page
from an abilities point of view

Categories, lists, and series box synergy

Categories, lists, and nav templates are tools. Thinking they compete with each other is like thinking a hammer, a saw, and a screwdriver compete with each other. Even though you can bang things with a screwdriver, and screw things with the blunt edge of a saw, you wouldn't want to. The wise carpenter puts all three tools in his toolbox, learns how to use each effectively, and learns how to pick the right tool for the job.

Being tools, categories, lists, and nav templates all have different abilities. That is why we use all three. A well done nav template or list can overlap or even duplicate a category and not be redundant with it. This is because the three tools provide different functions.

Synergy is the interconnections between categories, lists, and series boxes and the benefits that Wikipedia expects to realize from their intelligent use. Here we will describe a complementary approach where none of these tools compete with each other. This section is a guide on how and when to use each tool.

Applications that categories excel at
 * 1) Dynamic schemes, such as categories, are good for categorizing items that are likely to change. Thus, categories are ideal for tracking items like best selling books, NPOV articles, and current events.

Applications not suitable for categories
 * xxx

What is getting to be very tiresome is working with a contrary editor, who absolutely refuses to help reach a consensus with at least 2 other editors on anything, even on their own ideas. You are a breed of editor full of ideas, or hot air depending on your perspective, who for what ever reason refuses to articulate their own ideas into workable text in the above box of whatever color. Either you are either incredibly obnoxious or extremely dense.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, I consider the abilities idea offically dead until you develop something that I can actually see. Feel free, to do whatever. I am back to developing the advantages/disadvantages approach.

Just incase you, truly don't know. The editing capabilities of this talk page remain destroyed. -- John Gohde 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) -


text:
Talk:Iquique Naval Combat

Lets discuss: The Information as it stands now is not bad, but it is also not complete.

 * If its not complete, please put here what is missing

1st of the territory called Antofagasta region was at the start of the War neither Bolivian neither Chilean. The reason for that is the following:

Both, Chile & Bolivia claimed that the territory was their own. After the treaty of 1866 y the one of 1874, that replaced the one of 1866. The border between Chile & Bolivia was established to be the parallel 25th.

 * Parallel 24th for being more accurate. Also, Bolivia had jurisdiction over the territory.

Chile, who received half of the taxes obtained from the export of minerals & guano according to the treaty of 1866, dropped that right. On the counterpart Bolivia was forbidden to raise or implement tax on any Chilean company in the region for the time of 25 years.

When Bolivia imposed that tax in 1879 Chile considers that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874. By that & according to Chilean view the territory passed back to be part of Chile.

 * The territory of Atacama was, before the "War of the Pacific", under Bolivian administration. There is no question about that. Please take a look at the maps of the Time and you would realize that important fact. Also, for being honest, it is the first time that I heard that Chilean view of the treaty.

 * The Covadonga was a Gunboat not a Corvette. Also I added the date of construction to show that they weren’t the newest ships either

 * Nobody have said that the Convadonga was a "New Ship". That is a poor claim. Also, it is considerated by some as a Corvette.

 * Adding some more detailed information about the Battle it self beside of (then he rammed it & the Esmeralda sunk)

Basically I added more details to the events that happened. All info is backed up. If you whish I can post several Bibliography.

 * PLease state your sources here, but let me warn you that info from right-wing pages like "Soberania Chile" are not good arguments. Wikipedia is for NPOV only, and not to glorify military actions of neither side.

Forestin

I have answer most of your opnions. Feel free to contact me before any change. Messhermit 02:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well. The Description of hte Battle of Iquique is very very poor as it is now. Also You will notice that the inputs that I have made are in no way right wing ones, but beutrals that only descirbe more the vents. Further I don´t have the need to get to sources like "Soberania Chilena" since I have, s statted on the other page "Pacific War" acces to a lot of contemporary information from that time, + several books from Chile, Peru & Bolivia.

 * I realy appretiate that, since webpages like that are the ones that clearly shows perfect examples of distortioned history.

Regarding the maps: In fact, the territory was under Bolivan administration before the war. To be more exactly in the time between 1866 and 1879. Before the treaty of 1866 Chile & Bolivia considert it to be there territory.After the treaty of 1866 & then the one of 1874 the border was established at the 24th parallel (look above). Well, with the incidents Chile considert that Bolivia had broken the treaty of 1874 by which the territory passed back to be Chilean.

 * About "passed back to Chile", it is quite confusing. I have never read a clause that stated any chilean sovereign over the territory, just marking its borders. I don/t believe that is strong enough to declare the teritory under chilean control.

For that I can show you just as many maps that show the territory, prior to 1866, to be Chilean as to be Bolivian.

As for the Covadonga: it is classefied by the Chilean Navy as a Gunboat. It was classefied by the Peruvian Navy as a Gunboat. So why should we classefie it as a Corvette? No, the Covadonga is a Guboat.

 * I took my info from several english pages that stated that. I will made futher research for it.

Sources: -Testimonios de la Guerra del Pacifico -La Campaña de Tarapaca -El combate Naval de Iquique -Conemporary documents from the regetries of the Chilean Military

Those are just somethat come into my mind right now. I will add the rest & the authors of the books.

 * Indeed, those are reasonable sources. I also have mines.

Again, I haven´t added nothing nationalistic. The information is copletly neutral & only reflects the events that took place.

Please indicate me what you think that is wrong or inapropiated in the information I have putted. I would realy apretiate it. forestin
 * Much more discussion is needed before modifying the article. Wiki must be made base on concepts, rather than POV. Thanks. Messhermit 03:59, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Iquique Naval Combat


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia

 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. Voting is now closed. The consensus is to delete. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Virtual Commonwealth of Cyberia
Non notable micronation. Move to MicroWiki. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KEEP- O f course we should keep this article, I mean does it hurt Wikipeida? (unsigned from 24.181.239.120)
 * Delete. --Spinboy 22:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all micronations. RickK 23:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've lost interest in defending the lesser micronations from deletion. But as a compulsive nitpicker, I have to point out that one or two micronations are actually notable. Sealand for example. ---Isaac R 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sealand is a notable micronation indeed. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 00:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't consider Sealand a micronation, since it has a phyisical presence. RickK 21:38, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * A micronation can certainly have a physical presence. In fact, many if not most do. That's not we are debating here. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that we were debating anything. RickK 22:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * We're debating whether or not to keep this article, and why. -- [[Image:Flag of Canada.svg|20px]] Earl Andrew - talk 23:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You and I aren't debating that point, we're in agreement. RickK, posting from another account 66.60.159.190 16:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a notable micro. -- 8^D gab 00:20, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
 * Delete this one since it is not a micro-nation that deserves an article in Wikipedia. Zscout370 01:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 05:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 09:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sealand is notable because it has a large tower in the sea and has been notable enough to spawn the odd news article which isn't of the 'send the rookie journalist to interview a loony' type. This one isn't notable at all. Average Earthman 10:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but a pretty weak one. They actually seem to have a lot going on, judging from some of the web activity I've Googled. (They actually seem to be locked in some kind of virtual civil war!) I'd vote to keep the article if it contained anything of actual interest. But as long as their activities remain mysterious to outsiders, they ain't notable. ---Isaac R
 * The article used to include information that made Cyberia's activities unmysterious. That information was deleted by an admin on grounds that it did not reflect a "neutral point of view."  The "virtual civil war" is well-known to the entire community at Micronations.Net.  It's not really a civil war, per se.  It's more that some other guy keeps putting up websites claiming to be Cyberia's legitimate web presence. (unsigned, by 66.130.8.96)
 * Delete, not notable. --Dcfleck 23:06, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
 * Delete all micronations. None of them are notable. Master Thief Garrett 01:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've actually learned a lot of things about this micronation lately, and I have to doubt all the "loonies" we have right here when their judgments call for getting all micronations deleted. What about Sealand? What about Talossa? Wiwaxia 00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think looniehood is the issue. We can judge an organization's notability without passing judgment on its self-justification. So we can decide that Sealand is notable, but that some other micronations aren't. ---Isaac R 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Micronations will stay mysterious while Wikipedia does not describe them. The article used to be more informative before Gene Poole of Atlantium decided to add to the mystery by cutting much of the article. I see that no-one's proposing the deletion of the Atlantium article. If micronations are generally not notable, then surely that rule has general application?---Alan 06:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This micronation is no more intresting or legitamite than any other micronation, and there has to be a general rule enforced, either to delete all micronations viligante-style, or let them be. Honestly I think Wikipedia is used by many people to explain intresting Internet phenomena, and having the many micronations explained gives us this service to people. If we don't seperate ourselves as a complete source for all things, then how are we the best encyclopedia on the Internet? Jan Bei
 * 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: User talk:68.167.136.27

title: User talk:68.167.136.27


text:
Gideon Stargrave

Gideon Stargrave is a comics character created by Grant Morrison in 1978 for the anthology comic Near Myths, and later incorporated into their series The Invisibles. The character is based on J. G. Ballard's "The Day of Forever" and Michael Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius, which led to accusations of plagiarism from Moorcock.

History
The first published Stargrave story appeared in Near Myths #3 (December 1978), as part one of "Gideon Stargrave in The Vatican Conspiracy", written and drawn by Morrison. Parts two and three were included back to back at the start of Near Myths #4 (1979), and ended with a teaser panel for "Gideon Stargrave in The Entropy Concerto". Near Myths was cancelled after issue five, before any more Stargrave stories were published, but according to Morrison there were "dozens of unpublished comics and prose stories" which they "wrote obsessively when [he] was 17" which they subsequently found very embarrassing to read, calling it "pretty embarrassing stuff – the work of a seventeen-year-old who doesn't get out of the house".

Though unpublished, "Entropy Concerto" featured a second version of Stargrave, with a "Beatles '65 haircut and Swinging London vibe" which Morrison says "was much better, in that I can still read the stuff without cringing". In the early 1980s, Morrison and Tony O'Donnell went to London for a meeting with the publishers of Pssst! magazine, who said they wanted to publish Morrison's Gideon Stargrave stories as well as some of their other work. Morrison said "I'd done a new Gideon Stargrave story... it's my favourite one I've ever done in my life and it's never been seen anywhere." Like Near Myths though, Pssst! was cancelled before it was published, leading Morrison to "feel that [he] was some kind of albatross". Stargrave's next appearance was in "Gideon Stargrave in Famine", a two-page comic strip in Food for Thought (a British benefit comic to aid Ethiopian famine relief) in 1985.

The character next made an appearance in Morrison's The Invisibles (Vol. 1, #17–19, 1995) as an alter-ego of King Mob, one of that title's main characters, who in literary terms is reported to have been based on Stargrave. In this incarnation, Stargrave is used by King Mob to confuse his enemies during interrogation. Gideon is a '70s spy modelled after James Bond and Jason King who spends every scene he appears in seducing his partner, and is supposedly the main character of King Mob's works as an author. In these sequences, we see not only the actual Stargrave story (quoting their earlier unpublished Stargrave stories directly) but King Mob's cover identity (or probable real world identity) as Gideon Starorzewski, who produces his work under the pen name Kirk Morrison.

This ties the real creator (Grant Morrison) in with their various fictional creations (Gideon Stargrave and King Mob/Gideon Starorzewski/Kirk Morrison) and bringing together the various creations in a metafictional conceit. Much of the premise of The Invisibles involves the philosophy that language is a perfectly acceptable method of creation so the notion that Gideon Stargrave is a fictional character does not preclude him from being also a real person. Morrison has also said that they wrote "that Gideon Stargrave story which is kinda the last word on The Invisibles, where he just dissolves into the flashbulbs and that's Gideon's entry into the Supercontext, his death experience".

Stargrave appeared in Vertigo's Winter's Edge #1 (January 1998) in "And We're All Policemen" with piercings and a shaven head like King Mob, but wearing the trademark purple coat of his first incarnation from "Entropy in the U.K.". His fictional writer, Gideon Starorzewski, starred in its companion short story "I'm a Policeman" in Disco 2000 (1998). Winter's Edge #2 (January 1999) included "Dress to Kill" – cut out cardboard figures of Lord Fanny and King Mob, with alternative costumes, including the purple outfit for King Mob of "his teen fictional counterpart, GIDEON STARGRAVE, King of the Mods".

Inspiration
In interviews before the publication of Stargrave stories in The Invisibles, Morrison said the main influence on Gideon Stargrave was J. G. Ballard's "The Day of Forever": Stargrave was originally based on the lead character in J. G. Ballard's 'The Day Of Forever'; everyone thought he was ripped off from Jerry Cornelius, but it was Ballard. The Stargrave stories were completely off the wall... we were given the freedom to do anything we wanted and everyone had ambitions to raise comics up out of the gutter and into the realms of High Art. In the end, though, the lack of discipline resulted in self-indulgent and impenetrable stories that made no attempt to communicate to the average reader. Having said that, there is a lot of real personal stuff in there and it's probably closer to 'Art', with a capital 'A', than anything I've done since.

The style gave rise to comparisons with William S. Burroughs: the background [was] a thermodynamically unstable universe of engrams and entropy. The storytelling technique may have lost a number of readers, with quick cuts from scene to scene, laterally inserted information which at the time doesn't seem to be relevant, more akin to William Burroughs than Michael Moorcock, who at first sight many thought to be the main influence.

Morrison, however, denied the influence of Burroughs, saying: I was doing the unreadable Gideon Stargrave stories which used cut-ups and non-sequiturs before I'd even read a Burroughs book.

On the publication of Gideon Stargrave in The Invisibles, the letters section at the end of "Gideon Stargrave in Entropy in the U.K." in The Invisibles (Vol. 1 #17) included an explanation of the character by Morrison, which gave much more credit to Moorcock: I feel that I must explain a little about Gideon Stargrave. ... The character ... was inspired by my enthusiasm for the work of J.G. Ballard and Michael Moorcock. As a thinly veiled rip-off of Moorcock's "Jerry Cornelius" character, Stargrave was a ruthless yet likable dandy assassin

Despite Morrison's statement, Michael Moorcock was so outraged that he reportedly wrote a letter to Vertigo, to be printed in all their magazines, "publicly voicing his disgust". Although Moorcock has encouraged other authors to use Jerry Cornelius, in a way that borders on open source, he has posted a number of comments about a couple of authors who, he believes, have directly lifted the character. David Gemmell is one author, but Moorcock reserves most of his scorn for Morrison:

On June 12, 2003:

Grant Morrison pinched chunks of Jerry Cornelius whole. Apparently he admits that he does this from others. So that's why I say he's a thief. I don't mind my stuff being taken up and run with, as it were, as Alan Moore and Neil Gaiman, who say that's what they do. But I don't think much of people who just pinch stuff.

On March 14, 2003:

I find a difference between an homage, an amplification and a straight lift. Lifting is usually done by artists in comics. Alan Moore, Bryan Talbot and others have done riffs on Cornelius which have added to the method – extended what can be done with the character and technique, if you like. Morrison doesn't have the talent to do that, though he's probably seen the others doing it and thinks that he's doing the same thing. In my view he isn't. I wasn't ready to sue Morrison but I was extremely pissed off with DC for running it. Only after his most blatant rips had appeared did someone at DC read the originals and realise to what degree he had stolen the material

Other earlier statements include:

I've read the work of Grant Morrison twice. Once when I wrote it. Once when he wrote it. As far as I'm concerned my image of Grant Morrison is of someone wearing a mask, a flat hat and a striped jersey and carrying a bag marked SWAG. As far as I'm concerned, by and large, The Final Programme was a catastrophe saved from an incompetent director by some intelligent actors. In both cases, you can allow for a certain amount of subjectivity in my response.

I never take legal action – or almost never. It would be much cheaper to have GM duffed over. He's a sticky-fingered tea-leaf in my view. Alan Moore, Neil Gaiman, Bryan Talbot and other comic people all generously acknowledge my influence – yet none of them have ripped me off the way Grant Morrison has in certain issues of The Invisibles, which are virtually word for word taken from work of mine such as The Great Rock and Roll Scandal (also known as Gold Diggers of 1977) and others. He has grudgingly admitted doing an 'homage' but as I said, when you catch someone on the fire escape with your television in their arms and they say 'great TV man – you have wonderful taste' you still shout 'Stop Thief'.

In response, Morrison said in a 1997 interview: He said my work was crass and immature and a disgrace, but, as Mark points out, Michael Moorcock branding your work crass and immature is probably a great compliment! I think he read one issue and has no concept. He's made a fool of himself because he seems to think that the whole of The Invisibles is based on the Jerry Cornelius concept without having read the rest of what we've done.

And in an interview two years later: Moorcock saw the 'Gideon Stargrave' arc in the first volume of Invisibles and hated it – as far as I'm aware, he assumed the whole series was a rip-off of his character and didn't bother reading any more. I believe I was dismissed as 'crass' by the great man. C'est la vie.

They also expanded on the influence from Moorcock on parts of the story in a more recent interview in 2008: King Mob's 'Gideon Stargrave' stories are direct quotes from the Michael Moorcock-inspired short stories I wrote obsessively when I was 17".

Mark Millar jokingly wrote that "Gideon Stargrave is Grant Morrison with a girlfriend, cool clothes and no stammer" in reply to a letter asking what Gideon Stargrave was when filling in for Morrison, who was ill at the time, by writing the letters column for The Invisibles (Vol. 1, #22).

title: Gideon Stargrave


text:
Sun Dance

The Sun Dance is a ceremony practiced by some Native Americans in the United States and Indigenous peoples in Canada, primarily those of the Plains cultures. It usually involves the community gathering together to pray for healing. Individuals make personal sacrifices on behalf of the community.

After European colonization of the Americas, and with the formation of the Canadian and United States governments, both countries passed laws intended to suppress Indigenous cultures and force assimilation to majority-Anglo-American culture.

The Sun Dance was one of the prohibited ceremonies, as was the potlatch of the Pacific Northwest peoples. Canada lifted its prohibition against the practice of the full ceremony in 1951. In the United States, Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) in 1978, which was enacted to protect basic civil liberties, and to protect and preserve the traditional religious rights and cultural practices of Native Americans, Eskimos, Aleuts, and Native Hawaiians.

Description
Several features are common to the ceremonies held by Sun Dance cultures. These include dances and songs passed down through many generations, the use of a traditional drum, a sacred fire, praying with a ceremonial pipe, fasting from food and water before participating in the dance, and, in some cases, the ceremonial piercing of skin and a trial of physical endurance. Certain plants are picked and prepared for use during the ceremony.

Typically, the Sun Dance is a grueling ordeal for the dancers, a physical and spiritual test that they offer in sacrifice for their people. According to the Oklahoma Historical Society, young men dance around a pole to which they are fastened by "rawhide thongs pegged through the skin of their chests." While not all Sun Dance ceremonies include piercing, the object of the Sun Dance is to offer personal sacrifice for the benefit of one's family and community. The dancers fast for many days, in the open air and whatever weather occurs.

At most ceremonies, family members and friends stay in the surrounding camp and pray in support of the dancers. Much time and energy by the entire community are needed to conduct the sun dance gatherings and ceremonies. Communities plan and organize for at least a year to prepare for the ceremony. Usually, one leader or a small group of leaders are in charge of the ceremony, but many elders help out and advise. A group of helpers do many of the tasks required to prepare for the ceremony.

Canada: Obstruction, prohibition and resistance
The Government of Canada, through the Department of Indian Affairs (now Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Development Canada), persecuted Sun Dance practitioners and attempted to suppress the dance. Indian agents, based on directives from their superiors, did routinely interfere with, discouraged, and disallowed sun dances on many Canadian plains communities from 1882 until the 1940s.

The Canadian government outlawed "any celebration or dance of which the wounding or mutilation of the dead or living body of any human being or animal forms a part or is a feature" in an 1895 amendment to the Indian Act. Anyone who engaged, assisted or encouraged (either directly or indirectly) was liable to imprisonment. Though not all nations' Sun Dances include the body piercings, the amendment legally prohibited its performance for those communities that did.

It is unclear how often this law was actually enforced; in at least one instance, police are known to have given their permission for the ceremony to be conducted. The First Nations people simply conducted many ceremonies quietly and in secret. Sun dance practitioners, such as the Plains Cree, Saulteaux, and Blackfoot, continued to hold sun dances throughout the persecution period. Some practiced the dance in secret, others with permissions from their agents, and others without the body piercing.

In 1951, government officials amended the Indian Act, dropping the prohibition against practices of flesh-wounding.

Contemporary practices
The Sun Dance is practiced annually in many First Nations communities in Canada. The Cree and Saulteaux have conducted at least one Rain Dance (with similar elements) each year since 1880 somewhere on the Canadian Plains.

In 1993, responding to what they believed was a frequent desecration of the Sun Dance and other Lakota sacred ceremonies, US and Canadian Lakota, Dakota and Nakota nations held "the Lakota Summit V". It was an international gathering of about 500 representatives from 40 different peoples and bands of the Lakota. They unanimously passed the following 'Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality': "'Whereas sacrilegious 'sundances' for non-Indians are being conducted by charlatans and cult leaders who promote abominable and obscene imitations of our sacred Lakota sundance rites; ... We hereby and henceforth declare war against all persons who persist in exploiting, abusing, and misrepresenting the sacred traditions and spiritual practices of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota people.' - Mesteth, Wilmer, et al (1993)"

In 1995, efforts to continue practicing the ceremony on a tract of unceded Secwepemc land led to an armed confrontation known as the Gustafsen Lake standoff.

In 2003, the 19th-Generation Keeper of the Sacred White Buffalo Calf Pipe of the Lakota asked non-Indigenous people to stop attending the Sun Dance (Wi-wayang-wa-c'i-pi in Lakota); he stated that all can pray in support, but that only Indigenous people should approach the altars. This statement was supported by keepers of sacred bundles and traditional spiritual leaders from the Cheyenne, Dakota, Lakota, and Nakota nations, who issued a proclamation that non-Indigenous people would be banned from sacred altars and the Seven Sacred Rites, including and especially the sun dance, effective March 9, 2003 onward: "The Wi-wanyang-wa-c'i-pi (Sundance Ceremony): The only participants allowed in the centre will be Native People. The non-Native people need to understand and respect our decision. If there have been any unfinished commitments to the sundance and non-Natives have concern for this decision; they must understand that we have been guided through prayer to reach this resolution. Our purpose for the sundance is for the survival of the future generations to come, first and foremost. If the non-Natives truly understand this purpose, they will also understand this decision and know that by their departure from this Ho-c'o-ka (our sacred altar) is their sincere contribution to the survival of our future generations."

Filming
In most Sun Dance cultures, it is forbidden to film ceremony or prayer. Few images exist of authentic ceremonies. Many First Nations people believe that when money or cameras enter, the spirits leave, so no photo conveys an authentic ceremony. The Kainai Nation in Alberta permitted filming of their Sun Dance in the late 1950s. This was released as the documentary Circle of the Sun (1960), produced by the National Film Board of Canada. Manitoba archival photos show that the ceremonies have been consistently practiced since at least the early 1900s.

title: Sun Dance


text:
Maintenance window

In information technology and systems management, a maintenance window is a period of time designated in advance by the technical staff, during which preventive maintenance that could cause disruption of service may be performed.

High availability services
For a high-availability service, such as an Internet hosting service or Internet service provider, the purpose of stating a time period in advance is to allow clients of the service to prepare for possible disruption or prepare for any major changes to the functioning of the service. This type of disclosure is typically guaranteed as part of a service level agreement.

High-availability maintenance windows are often planned for a time where activity is at its lowest so as to cause minimal disruption to customers, though which also require unusual work schedules for the employees. An Internet service provider, for example, may schedule a maintenance window for Sunday during the night hours.

Managed business computers
Schools and businesses often automate the management computer systems; the information technology staff can use software to automatically install software updates during non-peak usage hours when the school or business is closed or at low activity.

Such scheduled updates can include operating system package updates, antivirus software definition updates, and software version upgrades for installed programs. By performing these updates during the night, the computers are not slowed by trying to perform updates randomly during the day when employees are working with computers.

Where disk protection software is used, protective services such as a scheduled system scan at each reboot can be turned off, thereby accelerating the boot process for users during the day. Instead, a full virus scan is scheduled during the maintenance window, but is unneeded at each startup.

Using a maintenance window requires increased specialization of skill of the IT staff, and requires a certain amount of time set up, test, and deploy. For small businesses with only a few employees, it may be simpler to just go around and manually apply updates at each computer, rather than spending hours trying to set up deployment through a maintenance window.

title: Maintenance window


text:
Alcatrazz

Alcatrazz is a heavy metal band formed in 1983 by Graham Bonnet, Jimmy Waldo, and Gary Shea. They are best known for their songs "Island in the Sun", "Hiroshima Mon Amour", and "God Blessed Video". They are also notable for featuring a previously-unknown Yngwie Malmsteen as their lead guitarist for a year, who was then replaced by Steve Vai, with whom they recorded one album.

Following an internal disagreement and split in 2020, there are currently two separate and distinct Alcatrazz line-ups, one featuring Bonnet, and another featuring Waldo and Shea.

The band went through a number of line-up changes, with Bonnet being the only member to be in every incarnation of Alcatrazz. Yngwie Malmsteen was the original guitarist of Alcatrazz from 1983 to 1984, and was subsequently replaced by Steve Vai, and then by Danny Johnson in the original incarnation of the band up until 1987. Joe Stump became the Alcatrazz guitarist when the band reformed, and remains the guitarist in the Waldo-Shea line-up of Alcatrazz. In June 2021, Jeff Loomis was announced as the guitarist in the Bonnet line-up of Alcatrazz.

After breaking up in 1987, Bonnet toured from 2006 to 2014 as Alcatrazz featuring Graham Bonnet with various line-ups, before a one-off reunion show in 2017 led to Bonnet and Waldo reforming the band once more in 2020, with Shea rejoining shortly after. From their inception in 1983 until 2020, Alcatrazz released four studio albums: No Parole from Rock 'n' Roll (1983), Disturbing the Peace (1985), Dangerous Games (1986), and Born Innocent (2020). Several months after the release of Born Innocent, Bonnet and the other four members of Alcatrazz – Waldo, Shea, Stump, and drummer Mark Benquechea – announced a split from one another, with both camps intending to continue to record music under the name Alcatrazz. The Waldo-Shea-Stump-Benquechea camp announced that Doogie White was now their lead singer, and released the studio album V in October 2021. Meanwhile, Bonnet announced that he was moving forward once again with his own version of Alcatrazz. In June 2021, Jeff Loomis was announced as the guitarist for the Bonnet line-up of Alcatrazz, with a new studio album in the works.

History
The band's initial line-up consisted of former Rainbow singer frontman Graham Bonnet, young Swedish guitarist Yngwie Malmsteen, who had recently left the American metal band Steeler, Gary Shea and Jimmy Waldo from New England and Clive Burr of Iron Maiden fame. Burr was reportedly only in the band for a week, and left upon discovering the band was going to be based in the United States, as opposed to his native England. Burr was soon replaced by former Iron Butterfly drummer Jan Uvena, who had just left Alice Cooper's backing band. Shea dubbed the group "Alcatrazz". For the first album, the bulk of the material was written by Bonnet and Malmsteen, with Waldo contributing to several tracks.

The band's debut album, No Parole from Rock 'n' Roll was released in late 1983 on Rocshire Records. Decent support was given by MTV to the lead single, "Island in the Sun", which showed a heavy Rainbow influence. Despite the commercial nature of the song, it received little radio play. The album nonetheless spent 18 weeks on the Billboard charts and peaked at No. 128. A second video released in 1984 for "Hiroshima Mon Amour" became popular in Japan.

Rochsire then released Live Sentence (1984), a concert recording with songs from both concerts of the recent tour of Japan at the Nakano Sun Plaza in Tokyo on January 28, 1984. Being discontent with the sonic qualities of the recording, Malmsteen tried to prevent the release of the album but failed. Some Rainbow covers were included, including "Since You Been Gone". The album peaked at No. 133 in the US. A live video concert was also produced. During this period, internal turmoil began surfacing within the band, between Malmsteen and Bonnet. According to Malmsteen, Bonnet had become fed up with the attention drawn to his guitar playing from fans over Bonnet's vocals. According to Malmsteen, their professional relationship ended with the two having an altercation on stage after Bonnet allegedly tampered with Malmsteen's amplifiers during a guitar solo and "Since You've Been Gone" at a show in Oklahoma. This resulted in Malmsteen yelling at and arguing with Bonnet, Bonnet poking Malmsteen in the stomach with his microphone stand, and finally with Malmsteen punching Bonnet, all taking place on stage. Following this, Malmsteen left Alcatrazz and created his own band called Rising Force, who signed with Polydor Records and released a successful self-titled debut album.

Waldo replaced Malmsteen with former Frank Zappa guitarist Steve Vai, despite resistance from Bonnet, and the band signed with Capitol Records after Rocshire was shut down following the owners being arrested for the embezzlement of millions of dollars. With Steve Vai, the group worked on new material and then headlined another tour of Japan, which introduced Vai to the fans and allowed them to play new material from the upcoming album. A concert video was filmed from these dates.

The band released Disturbing the Peace in the spring of 1985. The album was produced by Eddie Kramer who had worked with Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, and Triumph, among others. "God Blessed Video" was the first single and video, yet MTV barely played it. The album peaked at No. 145 and charted for 16 weeks. Alcatrazz, however, could never break out of their small following and had to cut a tour short due to financial problems.

Steve Vai left to join David Lee Roth's solo band in 1986. The split was on good terms, as it was an offer Vai could not refuse. He was replaced by guitarist Danny Johnson, who recorded what became Alcatrazz's then final studio album, Dangerous Games, released in the fall of 1986. The album had covers of the Animals' song  "It's My Life" (one of the only rock-oriented tunes) and Marbles' song "Only One Woman". Bonnet had been a member of Marbles in the late 1960s when they had this hit in the UK. The Dangerous Games album failed to chart and shortly afterward Johnson also quit to join the band Private Life. Disheartened by an ever-revolving door of guitarists, and dwindling album sales, they split up in 1987.

In 1998, the Renaissance Records label issued The Best of Alcatrazz, a look back at the band's brief career. God Blessed Video appeared in the 2002 videogame soundtrack Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, playing on fictional rock station V-Rock.

Bonnet reformed his version of the band as Alcatrazz featuring Graham Bonnet with guitarist Howie Simon (Jeff Scott Soto Band, Talisman), drummer Glen Sobel (Impellitteri, Beautiful Creatures, Tony MacAlpine), and bassist Tim Luce and toured Japan in May and June 2007—sharing the headline with another ex-Rainbow vocalist, Joe Lynn Turner. Howie Simon revealed in a recent interview that it was his suggestion to bring back the Alcatrazz name. They also headlined the BerkRock festival in Berkovitsa, Bulgaria in July 2008 and have played various West Coast US dates including support slots for Y&T. Alcatrazz continued to perform live occasionally until 2014.

In March 2017, three-fifths of the original lineup (Bonnet, Waldo and Shea) reunited for three shows in Japan, which also included Conrado Pesinato and Mark Benquechea on guitar and drums respectively. The performances were recorded for the live album/DVD Parole Denied – Tokyo 2017, which was released on December 7, 2018. In February 2019, Bonnet confirmed that he had once again resurrected Alcatrazz, with a new lineup featuring himself, Waldo and Benquechea, as well as guitarist Joe Stump and bassist Beth-Ami Heavenstone. She briefly became the band's first female member, having been in Bonnet's namesake band. This lineup had planned to record a new album together, which was also said to be including contributions from Chris Impellitteri, Bob Kulick, Dario Mollo and former Alcatrazz guitarist Steve Vai. Heavenstone was replaced on bass in January 2020 by a returning Gary Shea. Alcatrazz's first studio album in 34 years, Born Innocent, was released on July 31, 2020.

On December 4, 2020, it was announced that Alcatrazz had parted ways with vocalist Graham Bonnet and recruited vocalist Doogie White following conflicts regarding the band's management. Within a few hours after this announcement, Bonnet announced that he would "still be recording and performing with Alcatrazz", with a new lineup to be announced in the spring of 2021, and a new album in the works. Bonnet later clarified that one of the reasons behind the split was the remaining members of the Born Innocent lineup wanted to "only tour" with his former manager Giles Lavery, and added that it "meant that they had quit." He also stated that he was "not bothered" by the existence of two bands named Alcatrazz, had "no plans to relinquish" the band name, and referred to his replacement Doogie White as a "good friend and a damn fine performer." On June 4, 2021, the first single from the White-fronted Alcatrazz, "Turn of the Wheel" was released. A few days later, Jeff Loomis (Nevermore, Sanctuary) was announced as the guitarist for the Bonnet-led line-up, now referred to as Graham Bonnet's Alcatrazz.

On July 23, 2021, the White-fronted version of Alcatrazz released another single, "Sword of Deliverance", and announced that their fifth album, titled V, would be released on October 15, 2021. Music videos were released for the singles "Turn of the Wheel" on June 4, 2021 and "Sword of Deliverance" on July 23, 2021.

On March 13, 2024, the band announced vocalist Doogie White had departed the band to focus on his solo career and was being replaced by Warlord vocalist Giles Lavery.

Current members

 * Jimmy Waldo – keyboards, synthesizers, keytar, piano, backing vocals (1983–1987, 2017, 2019–present)
 * Gary Shea – bass, backing vocals (1983–1987, 2017, 2020–present)
 * Joe Stump – guitars (2019–present)
 * Larry Paterson – drums (2021–present)
 * Giles Lavery – lead vocals (2024–present)

Graham Bonnet's Alcatrazz

 * Graham Bonnet – lead vocals (2006–2014, 2021–present; 1983–1987, 2017, 2019–2020 in Alcatrazz)
 * Jeff Loomis – guitars (2021–present)
 * Van Williams - drums (2024-present)

Former members

 * Yngwie Malmsteen – guitars (1983–1984)
 * Jan Uvena – drums, percussion, backing vocals (1983–1987)
 * Steve Vai – guitars, backing vocals (1984–1986)
 * Danny Johnson – guitars, backing vocals (1986–1987)
 * Jay Davis – bass (1987)
 * Conrado Pesinato – guitar (2017)
 * Beth-Ami Heavenstone – bass (2019–2020)
 * Mark Benquechea – drums (2017, 2019–2021)
 * Doogie White – lead vocals (2020–2024)

Alcatrazz featuring Graham Bonnet

 * Howie Simon – guitars, backing vocals (2006–2014)
 * Tim Luce – bass, backing vocals (2006–2014)
 * Glen Sobel – drums, percussion, backing vocals (2006–2009)
 * Dave Dzialak – drums, percussion (2009–2010)
 * Jeff Bowders – drums, percussion (2010–2011)
 * Bobby Rock – drums, percussion, backing vocals (2011–2014)

Videos

 * Metallic Live (VHS) (1984)
 * No Parole from Rock 'n' Roll Tour – Live in Japan 1984.1.28 (DVD Reissue) (2010)
 * Power Live (VHS) (1985)
 * Disturbing the Peace Tour – Live in Japan 1984.10.10 (DVD Reissue) (2010)

title: Alcatrazz


text: User talk:216.64.249.28

title: User talk:216.64.249.28


text:
Return to the Blue Lagoon

Return to the Blue Lagoon is a 1991 American South Seas romantic adventure film directed and produced by William A. Graham and starring Milla Jovovich and Brian Krause. The film is a sequel to The Blue Lagoon (1980). The screenplay by Leslie Stevens was based on the 1923 novel The Garden of God by Henry De Vere Stacpoole. The original music score was written, composed, and performed by Basil Poledouris. The film's closing theme song, "A World of Our Own", is performed by Surface featuring Bernard Jackson. The music was written by Barry Mann, and the lyrics were written by Cynthia Weil.

The film tells the story of two young children marooned on a tropical island paradise in the South Pacific. Their life together is blissful, but not without physical and emotional changes, as they grow to maturity and fall in love. The film was not financially successful, grossing just $2.8 million on an $11 million budget. Like its predecessor, it received negative reviews from critics. It has an approval rating of 0% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Plot
Set in the South Pacific Ocean in the year 1897, beginning right where the original film left off, a ship finds a little dinghy with three passengers. They quickly find out that the two adults are dead, but the infant snuggled between them lives—a little two-year-old boy whom they assume is named "Richard" since that is the only name he knows. After being taken aboard, the baby is given over to the care of Mrs. Sarah Hargrave, a widow who already has a young daughter named Lilli. After the crew is infected with cholera, Sarah and the children are cast off from the ship. After days afloat, Kearney, a sailor who has been sent with them, tries to kill the boy owing to his excessive crying. Sarah madly beats Kearney to death with a harpoon and dumps his body overboard.

The trio arrives on a tropical island. Sarah tries to raise them to be civilized, as the orphaned boy Richard was born and raised by young lovers on this same island. They grow up, and Sarah educates them from the Bible as well as from her own knowledge. She cautiously demands the children never go to the forbidden side of the island.

Eight years later, when Richard and Lilli are 10 and 8 years old, Sarah dies from pneumonia, leaving them to fend for themselves. She is buried on a promontory overlooking the tidal reef area. Together, the kids survive on their resourcefulness and the bounty of their remote paradise.

Six years later, Richard and Lilli grow into strong teenagers. They live in a house on the beach and spend their days fishing, swimming, and exploring the island. Richard lets Lilli win the child's game of Easter egg hunt and dives to find her an adult's pearl as a reward. His penchant for racing a lagoon shark sparks a quarrel; Lilli thinks he is foolhardy, but the liveliness makes Richard feel virile.

One day, Lilli awakens with her first menstrual period, just as Sarah told her. Richard awakens with an erection and suffers a nasty mood swing, which he cannot explain. They then get into an argument regarding privacy and Sarah's rules.

One night, Richard goes off to the forbidden side of the island, and discovers that a group of natives from another island use the shrine of a Kon-Tiki-like idol to sacrifice conquered enemies every full moon. Despite a lone native spotting him, Richard hides in the mud and manages to escape unharmed.

After making up for their fight, Richard and Lilli discover natural love and passion, which deepen their emotional bond. They fall in love and exchange formal wedding vows and rings in the middle of the jungle. They consummate their new-found feelings for each other for the next few months.

Soon after, a ship arrives at the island, carrying unruly sailors, a proud captain, and his spoiled daughter, Sylvia Hilliard. The party is welcomed by the young couple, who ask to be taken back to civilization. Sylvia tries to seduce Richard, but as tempted as he is by her, he realizes that Lilli is his heart and soul, upsetting Sylvia. Richard angrily leaves Sylvia behind in the middle of the fishpond, in plain view of the landing party.

Meanwhile, Quinlan, a sailor, ogles Lilli in her bath and drags her back to the house. He tries to rape her and steal her pearl before Richard comes to her rescue. Quinlan opens fire on Richard, who flees. Richard lures Quinlan to his death in the jaws of the shark in the tidal reef area.

Upon returning, he apologizes to Lilli for hurting her, and she reveals that she is pregnant. She tells him that if he wants to leave, then she will not stop him, but that she wants to raise their child away from civilization and away from guns. They decide to stay and raise their child on the island, as they feel their blissful life would not compare to civilization. The ship departs, and the two young lovers stay on the island and have their baby, a girl.

Background and production
A sequel to the 1980 film version of The Blue Lagoon has been in the works since at least 1982; however, a battle over the rights to the novel between Columbia Pictures and the estate of Henry De Vere Stacpoole, who controlled the rights to the novel outside the United States, delayed the development of a sequel. Because of this, the project remained in limbo until December 1989, when Randal Kleiser told the Long Beach Press-Telegram that the screenplay was nearing completion and photography would begin in 1990. However, Kleiser would be unavailable to direct, as he would be in Alaska filming White Fang but intended to act as executive producer in association with Frank Price. The film was shot on location in Australia and Taveuni, Fiji.

Box office
The film was a box-office bomb; on a budget of $11 million, it made less than $3,000,000 in the United States.

Critical response
The film received even more negative reviews than the 1980 film. On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has a rare approval rating of 0% based on 31 reviews and an average rating of 2.7/10. The site's consensus reads: "Despite its lush tropical scenery and attractive leads, Return to the Blue Lagoon is as ridiculous as its predecessor, and lacks the prurience and unintentional laughs that might make it a guilty pleasure". Audiences surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a grade of "B" on scale of A+ to F.

Nominations

 * 1991 Golden Raspberry Awards
 * Nominee: Worst Director – William A. Graham
 * Nominee: Worst New Star – Milla Jovovich
 * Nominee: Worst New Star – Brian Krause
 * Nominee: Worst Picture – William A. Graham
 * Nominee: Worst Screenplay – Leslie Stevens

 * Young Artist Awards
 * Nominee: Best Young Actress Starring in a Motion Picture – Milla Jovovich

VHS and DVD

 * VHS release date: February 5, 1992
 * DVD release date: November 5, 2002

Streaming
The 1991 sequel was made available for streaming through various services.

title: Return to the Blue Lagoon


text:
Rhythm and Hues Studios

Rhythm & Hues Studios is an American visual effects and animation company that received the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects in 1995 for Babe, in 2008 for The Golden Compass, and in 2013 for Life of Pi. It also received four Scientific and Technical Academy Awards.

The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in early 2013. It was then purchased by an affiliate of Prana Studios, 34x118 Holdings, LLC, but retained the same name.

1987–2008
Rhythm & Hues Studios was established in Los Angeles, California in 1987 by former employees of Robert Abel and Associates (John Patrick Hughes, Pauline Ts'o, Keith Goldfarb, Cliff Boule, Frank Wuts and Charles Gibson). The company used its own proprietary software for its photo-realistic character animation/visual effects—as well as for those that are more stylized.

In 1998, Rhythm & Hues Studios developed a video game titled Eggs of Steel: Charlie's Eggcellent Adventure for the PlayStation.

In 1999, Rhythm & Hues Studios acquired visual effects house VIFX from 20th Century Fox.

2009–2020
Director Ang Lee approached Rhythm & Hues in August 2009 to discuss a planned film adaptation of the fantasy novel Life of Pi. R&H VFX (Visual Effects) Supervisor Bill Westenhofer noted that Lee "knew we had done the lion in the first Narnia movie. He asked, 'Does a digital character look more or less real in 3D?' We looked at each other and thought that was a pretty good question." He also stated that during these meetings, Lee said, "'I look forward to making art with you.' This was really for me one of the most rewarding things I've worked on and the first chance to really combine art with VFX. Every shot was artistic exploration, to make the ocean a character and make it interesting we had to strive to make it as visually stunning as possible."

By 2012, the company had become a global one, with offices and artists in India (the Mumbai suburb of Malad and HITEC City which is a part of Hyderabad), Malaysia (Cyberjaya just outside Kuala Lumpur), Canada (Vancouver), and Taiwan (Kaohsiung).

Rhythm & Hues spent a year on research and development, "building upon its already vast knowledge of CGI animation" to develop the tiger. Artist Abdul Rahman in the Malaysian branch underscored the global nature of the effects process, saying that "the special thing about Life of Pi is that it was the first time we did something called remote rendering, where we engaged our cloud infrastructure in Taiwan called CAVE (Cloud Animation and Visual Effects)".

The resulting film, Life of Pi, was released in theaters in November 2012, and was a critical and commercial success. The British Film Institute's Sight & Sound magazine suggested that, "Life of Pi can be seen as the film Rhythm & Hues has been building up to all these years, by taking things they learned from each production from Cats & Dogs to Yogi Bear, integrating their animals in different situations and environments, pushing them to do more, and understanding how all of this can succeed both visually and dramatically."

On February 11, 2013, Rhythm & Hues Studios filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11, three months after Life of Pi was released.

On March 29, 2013, an affiliate of Prana Studios, 34x118 Holdings, LLC, won the bidding on Rhythm and Hues in a bankruptcy auction. The sale was "valued at about $30 million". In February 2015, founders Hughes, Goldfarb, and Tso were sued for having “pillaged” the VFX house, including conflicted technology and real estate transfers. As of January 2024, the outcome of the lawsuit hasn't been made public.

After the bankruptcy and sale, Rhythm and Hues continued to successfully work on award-winning film, television, and themed entertainment projects, winning multiple Emmy and Visual Effects Society awards for their work on Game of Thrones.

Selected filmography

 * 2022
 * RRR

 * 2021
 * The King's Man

 * 2019
 * Hellboy
 * The Boys

 * 2018
 * Lost in Space
 * Carnival Row
 * The Walking Dead (season 8)
 * Slender Man
 * 2.0

 * 2017
 * Game of Thrones (season 7)
 * The Walking Dead (season 7)
 * Midnight, Texas
 * The Mist

 * 2016
 * Game of Thrones (season 6)
 * Skull Island: Reign of Kong

 * 2015
 * Game of Thrones (season 5)
 * Fear the Walking Dead

 * 2014
 * 300: Rise of an Empire
 * Seventh Son
 * Winter's Tale
 * Tammy
 * Into the Storm
 * X-Men: Days of Future Past

 * 2013
 * Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
 * Machete Kills
 * R.I.P.D.
 * Grown Ups 2
 * The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

 * 2012
 * The Bourne Legacy
 * Big Miracle
 * Django Unchained
 * Chronicle
 * Red Dawn
 * The Hunger Games
 * This is 40
 * Life of Pi
 * Snow White and the Huntsman

 * 2011
 * Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked
 * Hop
 * Moneyball
 * The Cabin in the Woods
 * Game of Thrones
 * Red Riding Hood
 * Mr. Popper's Penguins
 * X-Men: First Class

 * 2010
 * The A-Team
 * Marmaduke
 * Charlie St. Cloud
 * Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief
 * The Wolfman
 * Knight and Day
 * Little Fockers
 * Hot Tub Time Machine
 * Yogi Bear

 * 2009
 * Aliens in the Attic
 * Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
 * Fast & Furious
 * The Time Traveler's Wife
 * Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant
 * State of Play
 * Land of the Lost
 * Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
 * Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

 * 2008
 * The Incredible Hulk
 * The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor

 * 2007
 * The Golden Compass
 * Live Free or Die Hard
 * I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry
 * The Seeker: The Dark Is Rising
 * The Kingdom
 * Alvin and the Chipmunks
 * Evan Almighty

 * 2006
 * Charlotte's Web
 * Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties
 * The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift
 * Happy Feet
 * Night at the Museum
 * Superman Returns
 * X-Men: The Last Stand

 * 2005
 * The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe
 * Elektra
 * The Longest Yard
 * The Skeleton Key
 * The Ring 2
 * Serenity
 * Ice Princess

 * 2004
 * Around the World in 80 Days
 * Garfield: The Movie
 * Friday Night Lights
 * The Flight of the Phoenix
 * The Chronicles of Riddick
 * Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed

 * 2003
 * The Cat in the Hat
 * Daredevil
 * The Rundown
 * Intolerable Cruelty
 * Elf
 * The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
 * X2

 * 2002
 * Men in Black II
 * Scooby-Doo
 * The Ring
 * Solaris
 * Kung POW!
 * Stuart Little 2
 * The Sum of All Fears

 * 2001
 * Cats & Dogs
 * Dr. Dolittle 2
 * Along Came a Spider
 * Behind Enemy Lines
 * One Night at McCool's
 * Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
 * The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
 * Planet of the Apes

 * 2000
 * How the Grinch Stole Christmas
 * Little Nicky
 * X-Men
 * Fantasia 2000
 * Dracula 2000
 * Bedazzled
 * Frequency
 * Battlefield Earth
 * The Sixth Day
 * The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas
 * Rugrats in Paris: The Movie
 * Hollow Man

 * 1999
 * Anna and the King
 * The Green Mile
 * End of Days
 * Mystery Men
 * Summer of Sam
 * The Story of Us
 * Stuart Little

 * 1998
 * Babe: Pig in the City
 * The Parent Trap
 * The Faculty
 * Soldier
 * Stepmom

 * 1997
 * Speed 2: Cruise Control
 * Spawn
 * MouseHunt
 * Batman & Robin

 * 1996
 * Kazaam
 * The Nutty Professor

 * 1995
 * Babe
 * Batman Forever
 * Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls
 * Waterworld

 * 1994
 * The Pagemaster

 * 1993
 * Hocus Pocus
 * We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story

 * 1992
 * Stay Tuned

 * 1991
 * Rover Dangerfield
 * Flight of the Intruder

 * 1990
 * The Funtastic World of Hanna-Barbera
 * Jetsons: The Movie

Academy Award for Best Visual Effects

 * 2012: Won: Life of Pi
 * 2007: Won: The Golden Compass
 * 1995: Won: Babe

BAFTA Award for Best Special Visual Effects

 * 2013: Won: Life of Pi
 * 2007: Won: The Golden Compass, Visual Effects

Emmy Award for Outstanding Special Visual Effects

 * 2018: Won: Game of Thrones "Beyond the Wall"
 * 2016: Won: Game of Thrones "Battle of the Bastards"
 * 2015: Won: Game of Thrones "The Dance of Dragons"

Visual Effects Society Award for Outstanding Animated Performance

 * 2016: Won: Game of Thrones "Battle of the Bastards; Drogon"

Further reading and viewing

 * Lee, Kevin. "Video essay: The animal menagerie of Rhythm and Hues". Sight & Sound, British Film Institute. December 21, 2012.
 * "'Life of Pi's' digital magic". Los Angeles Times, January 17, 2013.
 * Zahed, Ramin. "Beyond Talking Pigs and Chipmunks". Animation Magazine, April 2, 2012.
 * Life After Pi (2014 documentary)

title: Rhythm and Hues Studios


text: User talk:65.150.178.173

title: User talk:65.150.178.173


text:
Wikipedia:Cleanup Taskforce/Calvinist Church, USA

Calvinist Church, USA
Original message from User:Dmcdevit:
 * I guess I'll start it off. Calvinist Church, USA really needs to be NPOV-ed to read less like marketing. It needs wikifying in general, and more comprehensiveness. And some of its sections should probably be checked for copyvio. Needs work. --Dmcdevit 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And moved to proper name. --Dmcdevit 03:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Copied into subpage --Randy 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Placed on User:Linuxbeak/Desk --Dmcdevit 03:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Task accepted. Linuxbeak 03:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Some help would be nice here, seeing I'm not a Calvinist expert. I'll still do my best. Linuxbeak 03:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will redirect this article to Calvinism if there are no objections.I know this is another quick and dirty job, but this article doesn't say anyting special about the Calvisnist Church in America. Linuxbeak 10:56, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Task closed. Linuxbeak 20:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)