text:
Antarctic Press

Antarctic Press is a San Antonio-based comic book publishing company which publishes "Amerimanga" style comic books. The company also produces "how-to" and "you can" comics, instructing on areas of comic book creation and craft.

Beginning in 1985, Antarctic Press has published over 850 titles with a total circulation of over 5 million. Befitting the company name, Antarctic's self-proclaimed mission is to "publish the coolest creator-owned comics on Earth". Co-founder Ben Dunn's brother Joe Dunn is the company's publisher.

Many now-established creators started their careers at Antarctic (with most continuing to publish with them), including Chris Bunting, Ben Dunn, Eisner-nominated Rod Espinosa, and Joseph Wight. Cartoonist Alex Robinson serialized his first book, Box Office Poison, with Antarctic in the 1990s.

History
Antarctic Press was founded by Ben Dunn and Marc Ripley in late 1984 to publish the anthology Mangazine, one of North America's first publications of original English-language manga. Local San Antonio creators Fred Perry, Joseph Wight, and Rod Espinosa were early contributors to Mangazine; later all of them had their own Antarctic Press titles. Mangazine eventually ran for 120 issues in three volumes over a 20-year period.

Another early title was Extremely Silly Comics.

The company's first hit was Dunn's Amerimanga Ninja High School, which debuted as a limited series with Antarctic in 1987. Originally intended as a miniseries, the comic hit such a boom of popularity that it became a full series, currently totaling over 160 issues (as well as two miniseries, Ninja High School V2 and Quagmire USA, and the color limited series The Prom Formula).

Co-founder Ripley left the company in 1989 and Dunn brought on his brother Joeming ("Joe") Dunn to help manage the business.

Fred Perry's Gold Digger, which debuted in limited series form in 1992, is still being published by Antarctic Press.

In the 1990s, the company also published furry comics and erotic comics — from 1994 to 1998 the company operated an erotic imprint, Venus Comics.

In late 1996, however, looking to cut costs and focus more on more mainstream properties, Antarctic discontinued publishing all translated manga, anthropomorphic, and adults-only titles. As a result, two Antarctic Press employees, Elin Winkler-Suarez and Pat Duke, left the company to form Radio Comix. Furrlough and Genus, both long-running anthology titles, were taken over by Radio Comix.

Many of Antarctic's staple characters, from titles including Warrior Nun Areala, Ninja High School, Gold Digger, The Courageous Princess, and Dragons Arms, came together in the 2005 How to Break into Comics, which also featured their creators in the narrative.

In April 2006, the popular title Warrior Nun Areala was re-launched as Warrior Nun Lazarus and began to include computer coloring.

In 2007, David Hutchison's Final Girl limited series gave readers the choice as to which characters lived and which ones died.

In August 2016, the company began publication of Rochelle, from creator and writer John E. Crowther and artist Dell Barras.

In 2018 Antarctic more than doubled its monthly publishing schedule to 15 titles. It also branched into distribution, taking on the comics of the all-ages San Antonio small-press publisher Guardian Knight Comics.

In the spring of 2018 Antarctic announced it was publishing controversial creator Richard C. Meyer's Jawbreakers: Lost Souls (crowdfunded on Indiegogo). After a backlash and threat of a retailer boycott, however, on May 11, Antarctic decided not to publish the title. Meyer filed a civil suit against fellow creator Mark Waid for "tortious interference with contract, defamation, and exemplary damages" for working to keep his book from being published by Antarctic; on December 23, 2020, the parties released a joint statement announcing that "Mr. Meyer has decided to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit".

Titles

 * 8-Bit Zombie by Fred Perry, a zombie-themed parody of/unofficial sequel to Wreck-It Ralph
 * Albedo Anthropomorphics — taken over from Thoughts & Images; later taken over by Shanda Fantasy Arts
 * American Woman
 * Bad Kids Go to Hell
 * Battle Girlz
 * Box Office Poison (21 issues plus a special, October 1996 – October 2000)
 * Chesty Sanchez
 * The Courageous Princess
 * Diesel, a loose adaptation of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure
 * Dinowars
 * Dragon Arms
 * Extremely Silly Comics
 * Families of Altered Wars (includes Luftwaffe 1946)
 * Fantastic Panic
 * Far West
 * Final Girl
 * Freakier Than Normal
 * Furrlough — taken over by Radio Comix
 * Gold Digger — written and drawn by Fred Perry
 * Hepcats (reprints plus one issue of original material)
 * A History of Webcomics
 * AP's How to Draw Manga
 * King of Zombies, written and drawn by Joseph Wight
 * Land of Oz: the Manga
 * The Last Zombie
 * Luftwaffe 1946
 * Mangazine vol. 1 (5 issues, Aug. 1985–Dec. 1986)
 * Mangazine vol. 2 (44 issues, Jan. 1989–May 1996)
 * Mangazine vol. 3 (71 issues, July 1999–Nov. 2005)
 * MetaDocs written by Joeming Dunn, MD, and illustrated by Rod Espinosa
 * Mighty Tiny
 * Nazi Zombies
 * Neotopia
 * Ninja High School
 * Oz: the Manga
 * Pirates versus Ninjas
 * President Evil, a zombie parody comic featuring Barack Obama
 * The Prince of Heroes
 * PolyCombats (2020)
 * Pose File
 * Punchline
 * Robotech
 * Rochelle
 * Sarah Palin vs. the World, a parody of Scott Pilgrim
 * The Science Fair
 * Sentai
 * Shanda The Panda
 * Shōjo
 * Steampunk Palin, a sci-fi satire featuring Sarah Palin
 * Stellar Losers
 * Strangers in Paradise by Terry Moore — 3 issues (1993–1994); debuted with Antarctic before becoming self-published
 * Strong Box the Big, Bad Book of Boon by H. Thomas Altman
 * Tank Vixens
 * Twilight X by Joseph Wight
 * Twilight X Storm
 * Wall Might, a Donald Trump-themed parody of My Hero Academia
 * Warrior Nun Areala
 * Weapons File
 * Wild Life, a humorous slice-of-life anthology edited by Elin Winkler-Suarez which ran February 1993-April 1995 for twelve issues. It included Joe Rosales' Wildlifers and John Nunnemacher's Buffalo Wings.
 * Winds of Winter
 * Zetraman: Revival

Venus Comics titles

 * The Barr Girls (1996) — by Donna Barr
 * Battle Binder Plus (1995)
 * Big Boob Bondage (1997)
 * Bondage Fairies (1994)
 * Cheeta Pop Scream Queen (1994)
 * Deviant (1999) — by Robin Bougie
 * Emblem (1994) — by Kei Taniguchi
 * Genus (1994–1997) — long-running anthology; taken over by Radio Comix
 * Melty Feeling (1996) — by Komashi Mamiya
 * No-No UFO (1996)
 * Nosferatu: The Death Mass (1997–1998) — by Holden Morris
 * Vanity Angel (1994)

Creators associated with Antarctic Press

 * H. Thomas Altman
 * Dell Barras
 * Robby Bevard
 * John E. Crowther
 * Brian Denham
 * Lee Duhig
 * Ben Dunn
 * Rod Espinosa
 * Danny Fahs
 * Ganbear
 * Wes Hartman
 * Ben Hunzeker
 * David Hutchison
 * Michel Lacombe
 * Richard Moore
 * Terry Moore
 * Ted Nomura
 * Fred Perry
 * Gianluca Piredda
 * Alex Robinson
 * Jochen Weltjens
 * Joseph Wight
 * Elin Winkler-Suarez

title: Antarctic Press


text:
Talk:Happy Nation

Untitled
There is an error in the article. "An European" should be "A European". The "Eu" sounds somewhat like a long-vowel U. People obviously didn't know that there was an exception to the a/an convention long vowel convention. --TheSamurai 02:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not fix the error and explain it in the edit summary? android↔talk 05:06, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Confused
Can someone put which album the tracks refer to right next to "Track Listing" for each release, please?

Fair use rationale for Image:AceofBaseHappyNationAlbumcover.jpg
Image:AceofBaseHappyNationAlbumcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Billboard 200 boxes
I think that the Billboard 200 boxes for The Sign would fit better under the Charts section rather than the See Also section. They were under the Charts section before, but when that section was expanded, they were moved down the page. --Classicrockfan42 (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Top 100 US?
There reads: The Sign is listed among the Top 100 Bestselling Albums of All Time by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

However, List of best-selling albums in the United States has over 100 albums that are 10× Platinum -certified in the US. Plus, Happy Nation 7.5 million "only" even when the Music Club sales are counted. 82.141.74.33 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Happy Nation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018210719/http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTop100&action to http://www.riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?resultpage=2&table=tblTop100&action
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141115113822/http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/kereso-eloado-cim-szerint to http://zene.slagerlistak.hu/archivum/kereso-eloado-cim-szerint
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904050951/http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_D.php to http://www.infodisc.fr/CDCertif_D.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Sales
Hello (and sorry in advance for my bad english),

I just saw on the Wikipedia page of the album « Happy Nation/The Sign » that the album seems to have reached 23 millions sales, but I remember that I saw on some websites that the album have reached the 25 millions.

For example, in this interview of Jonas Berggren, he said: « in 1995 it had sold 23.5 million already. Now many years later we have reached 25 million ».

There is also this video on their official YouTube channel, and the information was also announced on their official website.

I don't know if these sources are fairly reliable, but I wanted to point it out.

Thank you,

--KansenWirus (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Remastered version?
Does anybody know when the remastered version was released? The iTunes page has 1993, but that's the year of the original album, and usually the remasters are done several years later. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

US #1?
This is listed as being the US #1. However, there is no sales figures for US. Did this version even ever chart in the US? At least The Sign (album) article tells that was their debut in North America. So, the number one should have been after that. I doubt it. But if the Billboard chart page actually gives #1 to this, I'm ok with that. I can't access the charts, it only says "0 Chart", and "chart history" is grayed out. 91.154.188.185 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Happy Nation


text:
User talk:Raven400

In school the teachers alwats say somthing to  a black boy for having there pants off there wasit .What about those white boyz and girlz that wear baggie pants. thay might have a gun under there pants.

title: User talk:Raven400


text:
Talk:Next big thing

This needs to be merged somewhere, but I'm not quite sure where the best place is. I don't think that this topic is deserving of its own article. Maybe a merge to Marketing might be best. But there are so many articles dealing with marketing that there might be a better place to merge. Any suggestions? Dave the Red (talk) 02:38, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Next big thing


text: User talk:12.203.208.146

title: User talk:12.203.208.146


text:
User:Master Thief Garrett

Welcome to my me page! For the first time since 2005 it's actually tidy. Enjoy it while it lasts.

title: User:Master Thief Garrett


text: User talk:24.85.92.11

title: User talk:24.85.92.11


text:
Talk:Outside Context Problem

Usage
Has this term been used anywhere other than in "Excession"? If not, a more suitable category would seem to be "science fiction". --Christopher Thomas 02:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The term is used fairly extensively on the web (Google - 3k hits, although wiki and mirrors of do form about half of it), and seems to be used as an example by many non-sf sites ( Story writing]), in some cases (Economics) even without mentioning Banks or mistakenly attributed the phrase to sb else . It has been used in at least one academic publication (Google Scholar found: 'Information assurance' by David Birchall, Jean-Noël Ezingeard, Elspeth McFadzean at PDF, in the context of risk and security in business). While the terms origin is definetly in sf, it does seem to have surpassed it an entered a wider language. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisiting this, a Google search that excludes Wikipedia finds 530 hits, of which almost all are quotations of the book or reviews of the book. Things that aren't just blog or chat quotes or reviews are: So, a case can be made for the term being occasionally used, but I don't know if that's enough for it to be notable enough for its own article. --Christopher Thomas 16:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a 2006 art exhibition that borrowed the term, directly referencing the book as the source in its promotional literature (though apparently not on its main site) exhibition link.
 * There was a Salon article about running out of oil that uses the quote (page link.
 * There was an article discussing Sun's future that uses the quote (article link).

 * Other uses include software engineering (in reference to unexpected changes of requirements) and another article on peak oil. This page is using the phrase with a different meaning (the problem of how to get outside context into a particular part of a software system). JulesH 15:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * James Howard Kunstler uses the term in this video in his discussion of peak oil. He contends that our society (especially in the USA) is predicated on the assumption of always-available and ever-increasing energy supplies.  And therefore peak oil and peak energy are outside context problems for us right now.  --Ansible (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples
While I like the Perry's Black Ships in Japan example, I don't think that Hurricane Katrina and flooding of New Orleans is a good OTC example: there have been many floodings in Earth's history, and if the preparations were not enough, the fact that there were some makes it definetly an 'In Context Problem' IMHO. I am also not sure about the meteorite striking Earth example: we are aware it is a possibility, we just think it is so remote it is not worth the effort. Like a plague, it is an extinction event, which is not the same as OCP (OCP does not have to result in exctinction of our species, it is just something almost completly unexpected with potential to make or break given culture). I wonder if 'society awarness' is a possible factor here - i.e. if we can imagine something, is it any longer the OCP? Would grey goo be a OCP or just an extinction event? Alien contact is a better example, although science fiction has paved some way in making most people aware it is a possibility. It would be an OCP a century ago (Well's broadcast of 'War of Worlds' seems to be a good example), but would it still be now? I'd say that if majority of society is not aware of an event with the potential to drastically affect it, it is an OCP. Otherwise, it is an extinction event or just a normal social change. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"such as the scenario alluded to by Banks: the discovery of America"

America was not discovered with steamships.

 * I dare say it's futile to try to give an example of an OCP for us (that is, something that is outside our context), because any scenario one of us thinks of is either inside context, or will be as soon as it is explained clearly enough to use it as an example.—GraemeMcRaetalk 05:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true, I think. Consider this: if several visionaries realise something is possible, but vast majority of the population is unaware of it, then I wager we can still call it an OTC for that society.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed; also, with the aliens, for instance, it's not the mere fact of contact but its content that would constitute the OCP — whatever new knowledge, art, culture &c they were to give to or impose on us. --Sabik 15:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both, I'd think: if most people don't think that aliens can exist that their very discovery would be shocking to them.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It's obvious that this term, while it refers to a general and well recognised phenomenon, is a neologism coined by Iain M. Banks. If the term has been taken up widely by other commentators, particularly by professionals in cultural anthropology, that's a matter that would suggest that we should have an article on it, but if (as it seems from reading the article) it hasn't, then I suggest that we should merge the relevant content to Excession, the only signficant work of which I'm aware in which the term is used. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 * 35,700,000 ghits for Outside context problem -wikipedia . I'm not going to search the lot. :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, ok, so I searched a bit, I found this clip from Apocalypto, literally depicting the start of a nice juicy OCP. :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUx9Cemlexc  ... Too bad some people are allergic to youtube. --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmph, still 7540 ghits for "Outside context problem" -wikipedia. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, you'll find it all over fan sites and in that rather appropriate Apocalypto hit. Fans like it.  Perhaps we could have an article here that doesn't masquerade as a treatise on anthropology. :) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) From a quick runthrough the term now also appears in the legal profession, organization management, an art exhibition in hong kong, and many more. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add those references to the article, explaining context. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this. At the moment the article does seem to be a little OR-ey for my taste. If there is a well-referenced article to be written here, I am all for that. Otherwise a redirect and merge might be best. --John (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, RS being what it is... I'll leave the sweating to someone else thanks. (And I'm likely not the first person to drive by and say that :-P) Anyway, since I refer to OCP type problems myself on a somewhat regular basis, losing the page from wikipedia would suck bigtime. I might have to start a new Kimpedia, just to ensure that people will still be able to look up terms and concepts I use, so that they can still understand what I'm saying :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC) In fact, wtf is the POINT of an encyclopedia, if you can't look up concepts that people are using? The reason we've thrown out all our old encyclopedias is because they are so far behind the curve that they're essentially useless wastes of plank space. Pulling wikipedia too far behind would render it equally irrelevant.
 * Oh I don't propose to lose the useful content at all. If you look at the history you'll see that last night I quietly merged the article to Excession, but Piotrus disagreed and undid the redirect.  Now we've got a reasonably illuminating description of OCP on Excession, and a similar one plus some original research on this article.  It may be that we will want to keep the article, but I definitely aim to get rid of the essayish parts or at least sculpt it so that it cites reliable sources on usage. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmph. Well, I Was In The Neighborhood, Just Passing Through I guess, and became an Unwitting Accomplice to Piotrus in stating that it was "Fine Till You Came Along". It was A Momentary Lapse Of Sanity. Since I posses a Flexible Demeanour, I'll listen to your Appeal To Reason and take the Long View. Let's just see how your changes work out first. And now I'll make a Dramatic Exit, Or, Thank you And Goodnight! --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Wow, you really can make coherent arguments using just that list!

To whoever created this, please, You'll Clean That Up Before You Leave. OK, seriously, the lead says:

 * An Outside Context Problem or OCP is a challenge utterly outside a given group's (organisation, society, culture or civilisation) set of experience. Because an OCP is something that has never happened before, the end result is unpredictable.

The thing is, we don't have any references for this (besides something from some work of fiction or other, which obviously doesn't count). Now, we might get away with having a separate article if it said something like:

 * In the fictional world of Iain M. Banks's The Culture, an Outside Context Problem or OCP is a challenge utterly outside a given group's (organisation, society, culture or civilisation) set of experience. A particular OCP forms the central plot point of his book Excession.

—Ashley Y 22:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mergining it into Excession is not a terrible idea, but the term is somewhat notable. Lots of examples were given above (don't forget the section at the top). Previously mentioned article by Birchall et al. was reprinted in a book and mentions the term and Banks (: "In his novel Excession, Iain M. Banks coined the phrase "outside context problem" to describe an event that is completely outside an organisation's knowledge or experience, permitting only the application of theorised or general processes"). Here's a non-fiction book (2006) that uses this term in this context ("That process is sometimes referred to as an "outside context problem," something so far beyond the ordinary experience of those dwelling in a certain time and place that they cannot make sense of available information"), amusingly enough it does not mention Iain Banks as its author, making it an example of Mertonian "Obliteration by incorporation" :) There is also another scholarly paper mentioning Banks term: " Postcolonialism/s, Gender/s, Sexuality/ies and the Legacy of The Left Hand of Darkness: Gwyneth Jones's Aleutians Talk Back" in The Yearbook of English Studies, Volume 37, Number 2, 1 July 2007, pp. 182-196(15) by Pearson, Wendy Gay.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This phenomenon, given a name by Ian M Banks, is strong enough to warrant separate inclusion. If the term was coined in a non-fiction book this would not be up for debate. Who first coined the term Byzantine Empire, or Celt, or Brythonic, or communism? The list goes on. Just because it appears in a Sci Fi book does not dilute its meaning or usefulness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.78.62 (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I say merge. The term is non-notable, as shown by the lack of cites. The "examples" are original research, and must be removed.Yobmod (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I just noticed that the article has been tagged as unreferenced for a year! It seems no-one seriously intends to improve it (beyond orignal researching new examples.Yobmod (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On my part, I think the Outside Context Problem works better as a separate article. There are several cites in this section, above, and the article Biological issues in Jurassic Park (which is an important part of our coverage of paleontology, despite what it seems like, but that's way off-topic) has progressed ridiculously over the last nine months, yet it's still tagged with refimprove. As for OR, it's lately seemed that there are as many definitions of that as there are Wikipedians, but if I'm not in a condition to add the above cites to this article then I'm in no condition to debate original research. --Kiz o r  17:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 * "Cites" on the talk page are not refernces, and prove nothing about notability. I don't think that OCP used in other contexts (:-)) even has the same meaning as the Banks' term. Does anyone really think that the examples added were not OR? If they are unoriginal, ADD the CITE for the publication you found it in (you can't, because you didn't, and it is) (that's a general you :-)).Yobmod (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of recent edits
I've drastically trimmed the "See also" section, leaving only the link to Extinction event, which is relevant whereas all or most of the others are not.

I've also removed the "In film and literature" section which contained such gems as Future Shock, a book on futurology published by Alvin Toffler when Iain M. Banks was sixteen years old, and Roadside Picnic, a classic SF novella published by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky the following year. Excession, in which the term "Outside Context Problem" is introduced, was published by Banks 25 years after the Russian story. Its relation to either work is unexplained and possibly even unexplainable.

For instance Future Shock, which I have in front of me as I write, is about the impact of swift technological change on societies and individuals. It is not about the impact of technological change on the civilization as a whole, much less is it about the impact of something external or "unknown". Toffler identifies and extrapolates, rather, from what he perceives (in 1970) to be existing trends.

The Strugatsky story is based on an analogy between humans witnessing a visitation by extraterrestrials of an advanced culture, and wild animals witnessing a roadside picnic (a similar theme is picked up by Arthur C. Clarke in Rendezvous with Rama). While that has obvious affinities with Excession, the term "OCP" is not used and the implications for the whole civilization are not explored in the Strugatasky work. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

 * With regards to film and literature, I'd think that this section shows examples; as such ones older than the book, which might have inspired Banks, are quite relevant (hence, I'd re-add the Roadside Picnic). While it is ORish, there are other similarities between Strugaccy's work and Banks' (ex. progressors).
 * Future Shock, however, is indeed not relevant.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not "ORish". It is OR. There is no link between these books, and the themes are not particularly similar imo. Find a cite, if it's true! (It's not, so you cannot).Yobmod (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Full stop
I think this revert is incorrect. Banks is clear on this, in the text actually quoted in the article: An Outside Context Problem was the sort of thing most civilisations would encounter just once, and which they tended to encounter rather in the same way a sentence encountered a full stop.

Banks meaning is that the OCP usually spells the end of the civilization--his example also makes it plain.

The Culture does survive its OCP, but that doesn't make Banks' statement about the usual result false.

The existing (reverted) wording is weak and almost meaningless. Lots of events are unpredictable. An OCP isn't just unpredictable, it represents a serious survival problem for the civilization. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 11:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Ja, but it doesn't necessarily result in it's demise either. We cannot write that it does, as the ONLY 2 cases shown in the book are survived with no harm to society AT ALL.
 * Plus the OCP they encounter the second time is exactly the same as the first one, no?
 * The definition given in the book is also almost meaningless: "sort of thing" "most" "tended". Hence our definition must also be whooly and useless, to be true to it's origins.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the meanings of the words "most" and "tended" are clear enough.

 * Also I don't recognise the book as describing two encounters. The Excession only makes a single appearance, and maintains the same uniformly anomalous profile for the duration of the novel, at the end of which it vanishes of its own accord.  --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * But this is the 2nd time the excession appeared, isn't it? It had appeared before, long before the start of the book. The special op guy is told all about it.

Hence the book is a poor example of it's own definition - the problem wasn't outside any context, procedures were in place to deal with it, and it wasn't even a Problem!

 * Agreed, most means more than 51% and tended means "went in that direction but didn't reach the destination".

Why not just quote Banks directely in the intro? Because to me it doesn't mean demise. I don't think American Indian's would agree they have no culture after meeting Columbus - things changed, but demise implies too much.
 * Or combining both version, like: "....results are unexpected, and could result in the societies demise" Yobmod (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge/redirect
I think it's time once more to raise the question of merging/redirecting to Excession. There seems to be absolutely nothing verifiable to say about OCP that isn't in the novel, and there doesn't seem to be much to say about it that's in the novel, that would merit a separate article. --Jenny 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Agree with merge. It's not just that this term is a neologism with little (if any) thrid party use - it would be more easily understood and informative as a section in the book's article. This page can be a section redirect, so is just as easily found. I simply don't see any negative points to a merge, apart from annoying fanboys wanting to have as many individual pages relating to their favourite series.Yobmod (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

 * As there doesn't seem to be any further comment, I'll be bold and perform the merge. It can be reverted by anyone who wants to state an objection here. --Jenny 14:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Outside Context Problem


text:
Talk:Limited liability company

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 October 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dgansman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Limited liability and taxation
I think the article would benefit from a discussion of the policy reasons behind corporate taxation and whether limited liability without corporate income taxation is problematic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bookish982 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

 * If you are referring to U.S. LLCs, that is because it is internally structured and governed like a partnership with limited liability, even if it only has one partner. For both LLCs and partnerships, the tax burden is passed onto its members (owners). So income taxes on LLCs are still paid, the only difference is who is paying the taxes. It should be noted that in the U.S., an LLC can elect to be treated as a corporation for tax purposes, but all that really does is shift the tax burden to the LLC instead of it being on the LLC's owners. Basically, it just changes who files the tax return. So the government gets their share of the money regardless. For smaller LLCs and for LLCs that are subsidiaries, it is often easier for the owners of the LLC to file. For larger LLCs that are not subsidiaries and have multiple members, the LLC may take on the burden of filing the taxes to make it easier for its members. That way an LLC can grow without having to change entity type. So the policy reason is that the government gets the money regardless, but they are flexible on how you file your taxes. TejanAusland (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Confusion/conflation of tax residence and citizenship
This statement

In the United States, an S corporation has a limited number of stockholders, and all of them must be U.S. tax residents; an LLC may have an unlimited number of members, and there is no citizenship restriction.

needs editing for clarification by someone knowledgeable. Tax residence and citizenship are not equivalent. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added information about U.S. tax residency to the article. ~ Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Challenging deletions (apparent vandalism) by 73.71.251.64 on 12 October 2021
I'm challenging this edit and this edit. These edits removed neutrally stated and properly sourced information that I had added to this article. The anonymous editor apparently has not read and does not understand the sources cited.

The edits removed two critical passages intended to explain the purpose of the Wyoming LLC statute as originally enacted. The first is this one:

"The Wyoming LLC statute was tailored by the Wyoming Legislature to exploit an important flaw in the Kintner regulations—all six factors were supposed to be of "equal significance". This part of the regulations implied that it might be possible to structure an entity with both limited liability and pass-through tax treatment by meticulously balancing the six factors against each other."

As the cited article points out, it is because of this feature that the Wyoming LLC was so quirky in comparison to later LLC statutes, because the drafters were trying to thread their way through such a tiny needle. The replacement text fails to mention the "equal significance" language and how the six factors were balanced against each other, which was the point of the Wyoming LLC statute. By deleting an adequate explanation for the state legislature's actions, the resulting text inappropriately implies in a strongly biased fashion that the Wyoming Legislature was acting in an irrational manner.

That nasty implication is directly contrary to the cited source. Since there is no good faith reading of the cited source that could support such an interpretation, the edit amounts to clear vandalism of the article.

The previous language correctly conveyed the implication of the cited article that the state of Wyoming was acting in a calculated manner to cleverly exploit a subtle loophole in federal tax regulations.

The anonymous editor seems to have a strong POV bias against the state of Wyoming. (And to be clear, I have no particular fondness for the state of Wyoming, which doesn't have much to commend it besides Yellowstone and Devils Tower; my concern is Wikipedia core policies like WP:NPOV.)

Also, the word "flaw" is NPOV because it correctly implies that as a result of the Wyoming LLC statute, the Kintner regulations were thereby failing to accomplish their intended purpose: to ensure that those businesspeople seeking the protection of limited liability would always have to bear the burden of double taxation (personal income and corporate income taxes). If the IRS had been able to come up with a bulletproof way of accomplishing that purpose, the LLC and LLP would not exist.

The second passage at issue is as follows: "For several years, other states were slow to adopt the LLC form because it was unclear if a Wyoming LLC could get away with being taxed as a partnership under the Kintner regulations."

The anonymous editor reverted my revert of their edit by claiming that 'get away with' is POV language, especially with the hindsight that LLCs were ruled legitimate."

The anonymous editor is exhibiting extreme bias by using the fact that LLCs were later ruled legitimate to retroactively treat them as always legitimate, and therefore, any language that doesn't imply their legitimacy then, now, and forever is POV.

Sorry. History doesn't work that way. Today, principled historians—especially at top-tier research universities—pound into their students that sound, neutral historiography requires historians to respect the actual perspective of historical actors at their moment in time, however ignorant and flawed, and to clearly and carefully distinguish between what we know people actually knew back then versus what we know now.

Which means it's improper to write history in a way that views history as a teleological process of continuous improvement, as if a particular outcome in the end was always the superior outcome and inevitable. That's known as Whig history. Writing that way is widely regarded as a sign of intellectual immaturity.

"Get away with" is NPOV because it accurately and neutrally summarizes the perspective of Americans during the 1970s and 1980s as they looked upon the Wyoming LLC experiment: can Wyoming get away with doing that? If it was so slam-dunk obvious that the Wyoming LLC statute was legitimate under federal law all along, it would not have taken 10 years for other states to follow Wyoming's example. It was only when they saw that yes, the IRS really will let people get away with this, that other states began to tentatively follow in Wyoming's footsteps.

In 1977, American businesspeople were struggling with stagflation and shortages; the national mood was still depressed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War (and the resulting waves of refugees) and the Watergate scandal. And then the lawyers insisted on torturing businesspeople with arcane distinctions between sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations.

So why bother to create yet another kind of legal entity with its own bewildering terminology and rules, as a weird hybrid of partnerships and corporations? Answering that question in a clear and neutral fashion was the point of the text that the anonymous editor took out. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 * It wasn't vandalism, period. There is the possibility (for either of us) to be mistaken without acting in bad faith.

 * Your insinuation of a bias against Wyoming is odd, since "could get away with" strongly implies that the state knowingly undertook to defy the tax laws. The LLC structure was novel, but (as the prior wording admits) guided by the regulations as they stood. Although the Maynard source does use the words "equal significance" it does not say that all six factors were equally significant, and other sources on the subject (e.g. ) consistently state that equal significance was limited to four of the factors. Hence the structure of the Wyoming law: two characteristics shared between corporations and partnerships, and two that were not, placing an LLC at the threshold of being taxed as a corporation.

 * As for "why bother": not because "lawyers insisted on torturing businesspeople" or any of those other circumstances, but because particular businesspeople in the oil exploration business wanted the law, so that they would have limited liability in the US comparable to what they had elsewhere.

 * I've updated the wording to restore the mention of equal significance in the regulations, but without referring to this as a "flaw." 73.71.251.64 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 * I can't follow this dispute indefinitely. The question of why Wyoming bothered to create the LLC can be answered, and has been answered, without making it out to be some kind of caper. The IRS issued regulations and Wyoming made a law around those regulations for someone's benefit. The IRS might have contested the arrangement in court (as it did with checkbook IRAs, for example) but it did not. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Management of an LLC?
I am missing topics about the management of LLCs, terms like "governor" or "board of governors". The disambiguation page about the term "Governor" does not even contain a link to the LLC page. Unfortunately I don't know enough about that topic to add this information myself... FBitterlich (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 * For a U.S. Limited Liability Company (LLC), it is internally governed like a partnership in the case of a multi-member LLC. It does not issue stock and its members own percentages of the company as specified in its Operating Agreement. This is similar to how a U.K. Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) is governed. For a single-member LLC, it is still structured like a partnership, except it is a partnership with one partner.
 * U.S. LLCs are managed by one or more Managers appointed by its Members. Owners of the company are Members. The LLC is governed according to the rules specified in the Operating Agreement.
 * U.S. LLCs do not have shareholders, do not issue stock, do not have directors, do not have a board of directors, do not have governors, and do not have a board of governors.
 * Unlike a corporation or private limited company, a U.S. LLC has no layer between the owners (Members) and the management (Managers), unless it wants to add one in the Operating Agreement. It works similar to a partnership in this regard.
 * For a U.K. Limited Company (Ltd.), often casually referred to as a limited liability company (lowercase), it is structured similar to a U.S. Corporation, with shareholders which elect a Board of Directors which elects or appoints officers to run the company.
 * U.S. LLCs are basically partnerships with limited liability, while U.K. Limited Companies are private limited companies (corporations with limited liability). TejanAusland (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Type of limited liability company
[1] Public limited companies. [2] Private limited companies 105.112.182.66 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

 * There are also U.S. style Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) which are structured similar to a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), except that an LLC can have one member, whereas an LLP requires two. A U.S. style LLC is not the same as a private limited company or a public limited company. So there are actually three types. TejanAusland (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

U.S. LLC is not similar to a U.K. Private Limited Company
There is a lot of confusion and misinformation around this topic since both a U.K. Limited Company (Ltd.) and a U.S. Limited Liability Company (LLC) are often casually referred to as "limited liability companies" (lowercase). But they are not actually the same thing. A U.S. LLC is actually closer in structure to a U.K. Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) than it is to a U.K. Private Limited Company (Ltd.). A U.K. Private Limited Company (Ltd.) is closer to a U.S. Corporation (Inc., Corp., Ltd.) than it is to a U.S. LLC.

The reason why I say this is because a U.S. multi-member LLC is structured like a partnership, and a single member LLC is structured like a sole proprietorship (or more accurately, a partnership with one partner). This is radically different than a corporation or private limited company which requires shareholders, a board of directors, etc. A U.S. LLC has none of that.

So to claim that a U.S. LLC that is internally structured like a partnership is the same thing as a private limited company that has shareholders and a board of directors is misleading a best and inaccurate at most.

If you want to verify if this is true, compare the structure of a U.S. LLC with a U.K. LLP, and compare the structure of a U.S. corporation with a U.K. Private Limited Company, and you will see the disparity. TejanAusland (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Limited liability company


text: Template:User el-3

title: Template:User el-3


text:
Organización Nacional Estudiantil de Fútbol Americano

The National Student Organization of American Football (Organización Nacional Estudiantil de Fútbol Americano or ONEFA) is the major college football league in Mexico.

American football has been played in Mexico since the early 1920s in different colleges and universities, mainly in Mexico City. In 1928 the first professional championship was played, organized by Jorge Braniff. From the 1920s to the 1970s more universities and colleges joined the championship, and four categories, called fuerzas were created. The First Fuerza became the National League in 1970, and in 1978 it was reorganized under the name ONEFA.

In 2010 a breakaway league, CONADEIP, was formed by the Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education system, UDLAP and additional private universities. In 2017, the leagues started staging regular season matches and a National Championship. However, that only lasted for a year as in 2018, they did not stage regular season matches and cancelled the National Championship Game. The only two ONEFA teams that have maintained scheduling games (preseason) from 2013-2019 are the Borregos Salvajes Monterrey and the Auténticos Tigres UANL.

The universities that originally participated in the ONEFA were Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua and Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro.

Today the ONEFA is formed by 100 teams divided into four categories: Liga Mayor (College), Liga Intermedia (Undergrad/ Varsity High School, Liga Juvenil (two categories – Junior High/ Middle School), and Liga Infantil (six categories – Middle School/ Elementary School).

The most important one is the Liga Mayor ("Major League" – college level), whose championships are organized into two conferences: the Big 14 Conference, and the National Conference. The champion of the National Conference was promoted to the Big 14 Conference taking the spot of the team in last place which, in turn, was relegated to the National Conference. Since the 2021 season, there are 33 teams participating.

Teams
The following teams are members of Liga Mayor. Liga Mayor has 2 conferences: 14 Grandes (Big 14) and Nacional (National). Enrollment numbers represent all campuses of each university.

National champions

 * Year with one national champion (Big 12 Conference), Central Conference which was not the top level, was recognized as national champion.
 * Year with two national champions, one champion for the top level Conference (Big 8 Conference) and other for the National Conference.
 * Years with one National Champion (Central Conference) and the other Conferences recognized as national champions although they were not the top level.
 * † Defunct conference

Source: